Allowed

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

Allahabad HC8 Nov 2023WRIC/36548/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain, J., granted a writ of mandamus directing police authorities not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful marital life, conditioned on marriage registration within two months and absence of an FIR, citing Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere in petitioners' marital life, subject to marriage registration within two months and no FIR.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:215702

¶2

Court No. - 85

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36548 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Varsha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramanuj Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sr Hari Om Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in their peaceful marital life. When the petitioners approached the Police no help was given. It is stated that their marriage was solemnized on 7.10.2023. The record of the case reveals that they are major. No F.I.R. has been registered against them.

¶8

Learned counsel by looking into the papers of the parties certifies that they are of a marriageable age.

¶9

In Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. (2006) 5 SCC 475 , while dealing with a case of harassment by the parents of the boy and girl, who had entered into inter-caste marriage, Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions to the Administration/Police authorities throughout the country in the following terms:-

¶10

"This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such intercaste or inter- religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal

¶11

proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

¶12

In Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 28 and 29 as under:-

¶13

"28. ..... Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh case that there is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behavior. All persons who are planning to perpetrate "honour" killings should know that the gallows await them.

¶14

29. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars General/ Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate the same to all the Judges of the Courts. The Registrars General/ Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of the same to all the Sessions Judges/ Additional Sessions Judges in the States/Union Territories. Copies of the judgment shall also be sent to all the Chief Secretaries/ Home Secretaries/ Directors General of Police of all States/ Union Territories in the country. The Home Secretaries and Directors General of Police will circulate the same to all SSPs/SPs in the States/Union Territories for information."

¶15

In such circumstances, it is provided that the police authorities shall see that the respondents shall not interfere in the marital life of the petitioners. However, the petitioners shall get their marriage registered under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rule 2017 within a period of two months from today. The marriage shall be registered only if they are entitled to marry. In the event the marriage is not registered within the aforementioned period, this order shall automatically stand vacated.

¶16

No notice is being issued to the private parties. However, if they find that any false averment has been made in this writ petition, they can file for the recall of the order.

¶17

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

The order has been passed after hearing counsel for the parties but if it is found that any FIR is lodged against the petitioners, this order automatically shall stand vacated.

¶19

Order Date :- 8.11.2023 Kumar Manish.

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MANISH TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varsha 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinod Kumar Bind Vs State of U.P. and Another

Salman and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shyamu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Radhika Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nagma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sumant Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another