Disposed

Sujata Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023WRIC/38226/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted protection to two major adults facing threats and harassment from family members for living together. Relying on precedents regarding personal liberty and choice of partner, the Court ruled they can live peacefully without interference, while explicitly declining to adjudicate the validity of their marriage.

What did the court decide?

Little interference by private respondents in the petitioners' peaceful married life; protection through Superintendent of Police; liberty to recall order if documents are forged.

Sujata Kumari and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38226 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sujata Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Mukesh Joshi

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit, filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, is taken on record.

¶6

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.

¶7

The petitioners claim that they are adults on account of High School Certificate of petitioner No.1 and Aadhaar Card of petitioner No.2 and they solemnized marriage on 6.12.2022 in Arya Samaj Mandir as per Hindu Rites and Rituals. It is submitted that the petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage online on 8.12.2022. A copy of the marriage registration form has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is stated that for the aforesaid 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. It is further submitted that the petitioners are major and have right to take decision on their own and nobody can interfere in their marital life.

¶8

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 17.5.2001 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 1.1.2000. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶9

It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondents 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.

¶10

Per contra learned counsel for the informant/father of the petitioner No.1 has vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that petitioner No.1 is already married to one Rajvir and the petitioners have not filed the instant writ petition with clean hands and since the petitioner No.1 is already married, she

¶11

cannot solemnize second marriage with the petitioner No.2 and she cannot live with him.

¶12

Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mukesh Joshi, learned counsel for the informant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶13

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343 , has held as under:

¶14

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

¶15

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234, has held as under:

¶16

"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."

¶17

Having considered the facts and arguments raised by counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the instant petition has been filed in regard to providing protection to the petitioners as they are being threatened by private respondents. As both the petitioners are major, in view of the aforesaid judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners are at liberty to live together on their own account and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful married life. The respondent No.4 being father of the petitioner No.1 cannot make hindrance in the peaceful living of the petitioner No.1 as she is major and has right to live separately as per her own account.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order, in no way, expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage.

¶21

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

¶22

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Vandana

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sujata Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujata Kumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Smt. Anju and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nureesha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rinki and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others