Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023WRIC/42484/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Private respondent forbidden from interfering with marriage of major petitioners; protection directed Supreme court to provide if disturbance caused; marriage registration required within two months or protection vacated.

What did the court decide?

Protection granted for peaceful living; Superintendent of Police directed to provide protection if disturbance caused; Order recalled if documents fabricated.

Smt. Sarita and Another Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233378

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42484 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Sarita And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶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 major. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 solemnized their marriage on 3.12.2023 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Arya Samaj temple for which a marriage certificate has been issued, copy thereof has been filed as annexure-3 to the petition.

¶8

In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their High School Certificate; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is shown as 18.6.1995 and that of petitioner no. 1 as 2.3.1998. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have applied online on 3.12.2023 to get their marriage registered before the marriage registration officer/Registrar, which is annexed as annexure- 4 to the writ petition. Respondent no. 4 was averse to the marriage of the petitioners and intended to give her hand to some other person, however, till date no F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner no. 2. They have filed a joint affidavit in support of the pleadings made in the writ petition.

¶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. The petitioner no. 1 also moved an application on 4.12.2023 to S.P. Moradabad for seeking protection from private respondent and his associates, but no action was taken thereon.

¶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

¶13

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 . The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (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

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

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

¶20

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Dhirendra/

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sarita 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

Sanjeev Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Usha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sushant Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Laxmi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sadaf Naz Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Mohammad Saleem Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others