Allowed

Smt Sunaina Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jan 2023WRIC/39646/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought protection and a direction not to interfere with their married life. The court granted liberty to live together, directed police protection, and conditioned this relief on registering the marriage within two months, citing Supreme Court precedents on adult autonomy.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to live together; directed Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection upon approach; liberty granted to respondent to recall order if documents are fabricated

Smt Sunaina Devi and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39646 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt Sunaina Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jay Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J .

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed today, which 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 and living together out of their own freewill and their marriage was solemnized on 08.10.2022. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent 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.

¶8

In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their Adhar Cards; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no.1 is shown as 01.01.2002 and that of petitioner no.2 as 01.10.2000. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the 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.

¶12

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

¶13

others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) and Lata Singh (supra) has held as under:

¶14

"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."

¶15

"In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. 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."

¶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 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 the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶18

The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered under "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within a

¶19

period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶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

O rder Date :- 16.1.2023 Vibha Singh

¶23

Digitally signed by :- VIBHA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Sunaina Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunaina Devi 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

Vishwanath @ Bandey Vs State of U.P.

Lalit Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Arti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Umesh Chandra Vs State of U.P.

Sandeep Kumar Tomar Vs State of U.P.