Partly allowed

Khushboo Bharati and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC13 Apr 2023WRIC/7395/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court granted protection to two major individuals living together from interference by the girl's father and family members. The High Court directed police to provide immediate protection but expressly declined to adjudicate on the validity of their marriage, limiting protection against unlawful acts.

What did the court decide?

Relief granted to the petitioners; direction issued to the Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection against disturbance.

Khushboo Bharati and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 89

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7395 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Khushboo Bharati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudheer Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kamlesh Kumar Gupta, State Law Officer for the for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

Present Writ Petition has been filed inter-alia for the following relief:-

¶7

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful living of the petitioners.

¶8

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction commanding to the respondents concerned not to take any coercive steps against the petitioners."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners claiming protection of their lives and liberty as they are living as live in relationship. The averments made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavit of the petitioners. Further, it is stated that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are major, aged about 22 years and 23 years, in support of which petitioner no. 1 has filed her date of birth certificate and petitioner no. 2 has family register, they are living together out of their own free and sweet will but the respondent no. 4, i.e., father of the petitioner no. 1/ girl is annoyed. The respondent no. 4 and family members of the petitioner no. 1 raised serious objection and being annoyed they are giving threat to implicate them falsely in a criminal case and the police authority are not helping the petitioners to protect their constitutional right of life and liberty.

¶11

The petitioners approached the authorities but they have not been given any protection. Petitioner no. 2 is earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by a private job. It is further submitted that no first information report has been lodged against the petitioners. It is further submitted that the life of the petitioners is in danger.

¶12

It is settled 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. (vide 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

¶13

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

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner are major 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, Azamgarh, i.e., the second respondent, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶16

A liberty is granted to the respondent no. 4 that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recalling this order.

¶17

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order in no way express opinion about the validity of their marriage. The protection is only against the use of criminal force or any illegal or unlawful act.

¶18

However, any individual effected or aggrieved or any public authority may take lawful action for violation of any law civil or criminal.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed . No order as to costs.

¶20

Order Date :- 13.4.2023 Ishan

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ISHAN JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Khushboo Bharati and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushboo Bharati 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

Smt. Usha @ Ziya Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kajal Rai and Another Vs the State of Up and 3 Others

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

Juvenile X Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jaydevi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Anamika Joshi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others