Disposed

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

Allahabad HC8 Dec 2023WRIC/42538/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A two-judge bench dealt with a writ petition seeking protection from interference in their married life by the father of the petitioner. The court, noting the petitioners were majors living together voluntarily, issued a protection order prohibiting interference, conditioned on registering the marriage within two months.

What did the court decide?

Protection order issued against respondents No. 2 and 3 to secure petitioners' life and liberty; liberty granted to respondent to recall if documents are fabricated.

Laxmi Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:233515

¶2

Court No. - 83

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42538 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Laxmi Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dan Bahadur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

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.

¶8

The petitioners claim that they are major. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 solemnized their marriage on 07.10.2023 according to Hindu Rites and Rituals at Arya Samaj Vedic Vivah Sanskar, Delhi on her own free will and consent, and they have also file certificate of marriage issued by Arya Samaj. They have applied on line registration on 17.10.2023 to get their marriage registered before the marriage registration officer/Registrar, which is annexed as annexure No.4. to the writ petition. The petitioner No.2 is a Homeguard in U.P. Home Guard Department and he is a resident of District Bareilly.

¶9

In support of their age, the petitioner No.1 has brought on record her High Certificate -Marksheet; wherein, the date of birth is mentioned is 04.10.2003 and petitioner No.2 has brought on record the High School Certificate- Marksheet for age proof, wherein his date of birth is mentioned as 02.09.1998. Thus it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. Both are living as husband and wife after marriage at the place of petitioner No.2.

¶10

However, the respondent No.4 who is father of petitioner No.1 strongly opposed to the marriage and relationship, hurling constant threat to the petitioners and interfering in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners.

¶11

Petitioner No.1 also moved an application before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rampur 19.10.2022 as well as Station

¶12

House Officer, Police Station Meerganj, District Bareilly for seeking protection of herself and petitioner No.2 from respondent No.4 and his family his family members, but no action has been taken.

¶13

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.

¶14

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 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:

¶15

"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."

¶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 period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their

¶19

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

Therefore, the protection order in the nature of mandamus is issued to respondent numbers 2 and 3 to secure life and liberty of petitioners.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 8.12.2023 Ashish/-

¶24

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmi 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

Statutes considered

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

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

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

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