Partly allowed

Zainab and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Nov 2023WRIC/33484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court granted protection to two adult petitioners in a live-in relationship facing threats from family members, directing the Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure their safety based on established Supreme Court precedents regarding freedom of choice of partner and residence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to live together; directives issued to Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut to provide immediate protection against illegal acts.

Zainab and Another Vs State of U.P… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:214898

¶2

Court No. - 45

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33484 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Zainab And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Neeraj Kumar Chaurasiya, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Upendra Nath, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶7

Present petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming protection of their lives and liberty as they are living together in live-in-relationship. The averments made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioners. Further, it is stated that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are major, as per High School Certificate, the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 06.04.2004 and as per High School Certificate date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is 18.06.1997. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. It has been pointed out that petitioner no. 1 had married with one Javed and because of some dispute, she left her matrimonial home and presently lives with petitioner no. 2.

¶9

The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living in live-in-relationship. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of her family. In case, this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶10

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to private respondent. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.

¶11

The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the

¶12

law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. 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, as well as of this Court in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 . The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:

¶13

" 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."

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Meerut i.e. respondent no. 2, with a copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶15

A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged or any false averment has been made or facts have been concealed, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶16

The protection is only against the use of criminal force or any illegal or unlawful act. However, any individual affected or aggrieved or any public authority may take lawful action for violation of any law civil or criminal.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

¶18

Order Date :- 7.11.2023 Ujjawal

¶19

Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL PARJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Zainab and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zainab and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ahmad Hasan Vs State of U.P.

Rajesh Kumar Giri Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manish Pasi Vs State of U.P.

Juli and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Preeti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Chandni and Another Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others