Allowed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023WRIC/871/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed respondents not to interfere in the petitioners' live-in-relationship and granted protection for their lives and liberty, relying on Supreme Court precedents regarding individual autonomy and the right to choose a life partner.

What did the court decide?

Direction given to respondents not to interfere in petitioners' live-in-relationship; petitioners granted protection order; liberty granted to respondent to recall order if documents are fabricated.

Smt. Nureesha and Another Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 871 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Nureesha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.

¶5

The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents 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 on account of Aadhaar Card and they are having live-in-relationship 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 proof of age; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 1.1.1980 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 1.1.1973. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

¶8

It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family and the private respondent is resorting to physical violence. The petitioners apprehend danger to their life, in case this Court does not grant them protection.

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

"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 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.…"

¶12

The Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others , (1976) 3 SCC 234 has held as under:

¶13

"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."

¶14

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 livein-relationship. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police/ S.S.P. concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶15

A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶16

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

¶17

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Vandana

¶18

Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Nureesha 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

Shahnawaj Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sohanlal Vs State of U.P.

Shamim Bi @ Hina and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sujata Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

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