Partly allowed

Smt. Ruksar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC3 Nov 2023WRIC/37060/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court issued a direction in mandamus to the State respondents not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners, major married couple with no FIR lodged. The order was passed in reliance on Supreme Court precedents protecting major couples from harassment, with the condition that it stands vacated if an FIR is subsequently filed.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents not to interfere in petitioners' marital life; order vacated automatically if an FIR is lodged.

Smt. Ruksar and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:211682

¶2

Court No. - 53

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37060 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Ruksar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners 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 5.10.2023. They have applied online for registration of their marriage on 12.10.2023 under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017. The record of the case reveals that both the petitioners 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 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 intercaste 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 inter-caste 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 proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

¶11

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

¶12

"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.

¶13

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."

¶14

In such circumstances, it is provided that the police authorities shall ensure that the respondents do not interfere in the marital life of the petitioners.

¶15

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 application for the recall of the order.

¶16

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶17

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 shall stand vacated automatically.

¶18

Order Date :- 3.11.2023 Manish Himwan

¶19

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

Smt. Ruksar and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ruksar 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

United Forum of We Bankers and Another Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal and 3 Others

Smt. Resham Mishra and 3 Others vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Thru. Managing Director Lko.

Brijesh Singh vs Shiv Shankar Seth

Nargis Bano and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ajay Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Arti Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others