Disposed

Farheen Bano and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Jul 2024WRIC/21452/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought protection for major adults married by mutual consent against interference. The High Court directed the State to protect their peaceful cohabitation, noting such interference violates settled legal principles. Protection is contingent upon marriage registration within two months.

What did the court decide?

Protection granted to live peacefully; conditional upon registration of marriage within two months.

Farheen Bano and Another vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113545

¶2

Court No. - 87

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21452 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Farheen Bano And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amar Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶7

Present petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent concerned to protect the Civil Rights of the petitioners and not to disturb in peaceful marital life of the petitioners as husband and wife, so that justice may be done.

¶8

In support of their age, petitioner No.1 namely Farheena Bano has brought on record her High School Marks Sheet wherein her date of birth is shown as 16.05.2003 and petitioner No.2 namely Irfan Ahmad has also brought on record his Aadhar card wherein his date of birth is shown as 12.10.2002. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major and have married according to their own free will and accord.

¶9

It is further stated that the petitioners have annexed photocopy of their online application for registration of marriage dated 28.06.2024 which is placed as Annexure No. '6' to the writ petition.

¶10

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 her family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to 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

¶13

with their free will, then, nobody including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. Reference may be made to the judgments 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, as well as of this Court in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534.

¶14

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, this Court is 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 respondent concerned, with a copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, 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 or any false averment has been made or facts have been concealed, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶18

As registration of marriage is compulsory vide decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2006)2 SCC 578 and (2008)1SCC 180 Seema (Smt.) Vs. Ashwani Kumar , the petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months.

¶19

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.

¶20

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order in no way

¶21

expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage. The protection is only against the use of criminal force or any illegal or unlawful act. However, any individual effected or aggrieved or any public authority may take lawful action for violation of any law civil or criminal.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

Order Date :- 15.7.2024 Radhika

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Farheen Bano and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farheen Bano and Another v. State of Up 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

Vinod and 10 Others vs State of Up and Another

Smt Devanshi Saxena vs State of Up and 5 Others

Prem Nath vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Meraj vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Aysha and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Tannu Alias Tamanna and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others