Payal Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC1 Dec 2025CRLP/11286/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC (Lucknow) directs police not to harass adult couple who married voluntarily; relies on Lata Singh (2006) 5 SCC 475; orders marriage registration under UP Rules 2017 within 2 months; clarifies order auto-discharged if FIR already registered; does not adjudicate age/validity of marriage.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners; direction to petitioners to register marriage under UP Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 within two months; direction to Registrar of Marriages to process registration ¶¶21-¶25

Payal Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21-¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether major individuals who have married voluntarily are entitled to protection from harassment and threats by family members +1 more

¶¶13-¶14

Court's answer

Petitioners directed to get marriage registered under Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within two months

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner

¶¶21

Key takeaways

If any FIR is already registered on the issue, the order passed by this Court shall automatically stand dischargedratio¶¶22
The court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the alleged marriageratio¶¶23
Registrar of Marriages directed to process and issue registration certificate strictly in accordance with law at the earliestratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) disposed of a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by two major individuals (Payal Devi and another) who married voluntarily at an Arya Samaj temple, seeking protection from harassment by family members. Relying on Lata Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 475, the court held that major persons have the right to marry whomsoever they choose and cannot be harassed or threatened. The court directed the opposite parties not to interfere in the petitioners' peaceful life and liberty, clarified that the order would stand discharged if any FIR was already registered, and declined to adjudicate on the age or validity of the marriage. The petitioners were directed to register their marriage under the Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017 within two months, and the Registrar of Marriages was directed to process the registration certificate.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11286 of 2025

¶3

Payal Devi And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Naseem Ahamad, Avadhesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 11

¶10

HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for the State-opposite parties no.1, 2 & 3.

¶12

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.4 is dispensed with.

¶13

Instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass, threaten and interfere in peaceful life of the petitioners and family members of petitioner No.2 in any manner.

¶14

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that both the petitioners are major and they have married each other on their own volition on 15.10.2025 in Arya Samaj Temple, Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow. A copy of the marriage certificate has been enclosed as Annexure No.3 to this petition. In support of the petitioners being major, the petitioner no.1 has annexed her High School Certificate-cum-Marks sheet while the petitioner no.2 has filed copy of his Driving Licence from which it emerges that both the petitioners are major. It is contended that opposite party no.4 is not happy with the marriage and as such he is creating hindrance in the peaceful married life of the petitioners. Learned counsel has further stated that no First Information Report has been registered against the petitioners in this regard.

¶15

In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another2006 (5) SCC 475, wherein the Apex Court in para-17 has observed as under:-

¶16

"17. .... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry

¶17

CRLP No. 11286 of 2025

¶18

¶19

whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or interreligious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

¶20

The petitioners have also pleaded for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees liberty to lead life of their own with dignity.

¶21

Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner.

¶22

It is made clear that if any F.I.R. is already registered on the issue, the order passed by this Court shall automatically stand discharged.

¶23

It is however made clear that this Court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the alleged marriage.

¶24

The petitioners shall get their marriage registered under the "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within two months from today.

¶25

The Registrar of Marriages concerned is directed to process and issue the registration certificate to the petitioners, strictly in accordance with law, at the earliest.

¶26

(Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)

¶27

December 1, 2025

¶28

Reena/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Payal Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Payal Devi and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases