Disposed

Km. Supriya Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2023WRIC/39831/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted a liberty to two adult Hindu petitioners to live together in a live-in relationship, citing Supreme Court precedents on individual autonomy and personal liberty. The petitioner was directed to seek police protection if disturbed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to live together; direction to Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection if disturbed.

Km. Supriya Tripathi and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39831 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Km. Supriya Tripathi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondent no. 4 not to interfere in their live-in-relationship and also for protection of their lives and liberty..

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are adults and they are having live-inrelationship since 14.12.2022 out of their own freewill. 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.

¶7

In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their age proofs; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 03.12.1989 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 15.03.1986. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. Both of them are highly educated. Petitioner no. 2 is appointed as government Veterinary doctor in the year 2016 and is posted in Block Sahso, district Prayagraj. There is caste difference between the petitioners due to which their marriage has been opposed by the respondent no. 4 whereas both the petitioners are Hindu by religion. Respondent no. 4 is continuously threatening them.

¶8

It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent no. 4 can eliminate them for the honour of their family and the private respondent is resorting to physical violence, and the petitioners apprehend danger to their life, in case this Court does not grant them protection. Petitioners have got their marriage registered and registration certificate has been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit and prior registration of marriage they solemnized their marriage at Naini, Prayagraj and a certificate has been issued from Arya Samaj Mandir, Prayagraj.

¶9

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

¶10

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.

¶11

In Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343, the Supreme Court has held as under:

¶12

"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

¶13

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...."

¶14

The said judgment has been followed by the Supreme Court in Nandakumar & Another Vs. the State of Kerala & Others, Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018, dated 20th April, 2018, wherein the Court has quoted with approval the judgment of Shafin Jahan (supra).

¶15

Further, 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 in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 as well as the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Kamini Devi & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others (Writ C No. 11108 of 2020, decided on 23.11.2020). The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) 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 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 live-in-relationship. 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 6.1.2023 Dhirendra/

¶21

Digitally signed by :- DHIRENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Km. Supriya Tripathi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Km. Supriya Tripathi 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

Rohit Sonkar @ Kariya Sonkar Vs State of U.P.

Shekhar Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Kanhaiya and Another Vs State of U.P.

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

Danish Vs State of U.P.

Rahul Vs State of U.P.