Disposed

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

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2023WRIC/876/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court upheld the petitioners' right to live together and marry freely, relying on precedents regarding personal liberty and choice of partner. The Court directed that no person be permitted to interfere in their peaceful married life and instructed police to provide protection if disturbed.

What did the court decide?

No person be permitted to interfere in petitioners' peaceful married life; petitioners to approach SP for immediate protection if disturbed.

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

¶1

Court No. - 78

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 876 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Anju And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- CSC

¶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 marital life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.

¶6

The petitioners claim that they are adults and they solemnized marriage on 20.12.2022 at Arya Samaj Mandir as per Hindu Rites and Rituals and are living happily as husband and wife. It is further submitted that the petitioners have applied for registration of their marriage online on 5.1.2023 before the Registrar Hindu Marriage. A copy of the marriage registration form is annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent and his 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 18.7.2001 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 10.5.1998. 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 respondents are 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

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343 , 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

¶12

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....."

¶13

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234, 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 married life. 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.

¶16

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

¶17

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

¶18

Order Date :- 11.1.2023 Vandana

¶19

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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