Disposed

Smt. Afarina Khatoon and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Jan 2023WRIC/30405/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking protection of life and liberty for a couple living together against family interference. Relying on Supreme Court precedents on privacy and autonomy, the Court directed authorities to provide protection if disturbed. The petition was disposed of with liberty to recall if fraud is proved.

What did the court decide?

Protection granted to petitioners' peaceful living; direction to Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection if disturbed; liberty to recall if documents are fabricated.

Smt. Afarina Khatoon and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30405 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Afarina Khatoon And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brij Bhushan Prasad Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill and their marriage was solemnized on 23.09.2022 at Masjid and they have applied for registration on 24.09.2022 to get their marriage registered, a copy of nikahnama and marriage registration certificate have been filed as annexure 2 to the petition. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondents and their other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶7

In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their proof of age; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no.1 is shown as 01.01.2003 and that of petitioner no.2 as 25.07.2000. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶8

It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family and the private respondents are resorting to physical violence. The petitioners apprehend danger to their life, in case this Court does not grant them protection.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State – respondents.

¶10

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343, the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶11

"75. ...The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. The Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess and propagate religion. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme. The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run aground. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of

¶12

partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution.…"

¶13

The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in Nandakumar & Another Vs. the State of Kerala & Others , Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018, dated 20th April, 2018, wherein the Court has quoted with approval the judgment of Shafin Jahan (supra).

¶14

Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others , (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 as well as the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Kamini Devi & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others (Writ C No. 11108 of 2020, decided on 23.11.2020). The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:

¶15

"7. ... Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter."

¶16

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police/ S.S.P. concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶17

A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

Order Date :- 10.1.2023 Nitin Verma

¶20

Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Afarina Khatoon and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Afarina Khatoon and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P.

Rajkumar Vs State of Up through Principle Secretary (Home) Up at Lucknow

Om Shankar Kaushal Vs State of U.P.

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohanlal Vs State of U.P.

Shamim Bi @ Hina and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others