Disposed

Manju and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC16 May 2025CRLP/4183/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A couple who married of their own will sought protection from harassment by petitioner's father. The court found no FIR existed and declined blanket protection, instead disposing of the petition with directions on how to seek police help and to register the marriage.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioners directed to lodge complaints before police, SP, Magistrate or file complaint case if threatened, and to register marriage under U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.

Manju and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:29193-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4183 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Manju And Another

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Roshan Lal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents.

¶8

This petition has been filed with the following main prayer:-

¶9

"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners, whereas, the petitioners have solemnized their marriage at their free sweet will, being major in age, in the interest of justice."

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner no.1 and petitioner no. 2 are both major, who on their own volition and free-will have got married with each other in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals on 30.04.2025 at Arya Samaj Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow. A copy of marriage certificate is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this petition. It is submitted that the family members of petitioner no. 1 are unhappy with such marriage. In support of his submission that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are major, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 to the petition which contain Aadhar Card & PAN Card of the petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 respectively. As per the said documents the date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 01.01.2005 and that of petitioner no. 2 is 01.07.2003. The petitioners are being harassed by the opposite party No.4, who is the father of the petitioner no.1. They therefore prayed for the benefit of the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475 and the observations made in paragraph 17 which reads as under:-

¶11

"17..... 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 women 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

¶12

police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

¶13

This Court has found from the perusal of judgement rendered in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) wherein the appellants had approached the Supreme Court against the police harassment because of F.I.R. being lodged by the brother of appellant no.1.

¶14

In the case of the petitioners there is no F.I.R. lodged. The police cannot be presumed to harass the petitioners only under the influence of the private respondent No.4. The action of Police is governed by the provision of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as BNSS). Particularly, Chapter XIII of BNSS, corresponding Chapter XII of Cr.P.C., makes provision for information to Police and their power to investigate. In absence of any proof of such information regarding which the provision has been made under Sections 173 and 174 of BNSS, corresponding Sections 154 and 155 Cr.P.C., respectively, it will not be justified to grant a blanket protection to the petitioners as prayed.

¶15

This writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners that in case they are being threatened by their family members, they may file an application under Section 154(2) or 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 173 (2) or 173 (3) of B.N.S.S., 2023) before the Police Station/Superintendent of Police concerned, or move an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 175 (3) of B.N.S.S., 2023) before the Magistrate concerned or file a complaint case under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 223 of B.N.S.S., 2023) before the authorities concerned.

¶16

It is provided that the petitioners shall get their marriage registered by making an appropriate application under the Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.

¶17

[Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.]

¶18

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 lakshman

¶19

Digitally signed by :- LAKSHMANA KUMAR TAMMANA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Manju and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manju and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sagar Sharma and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Santosh Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Juhi Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt., Lko. and Others

Shiv Lal Sharma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Namish Rastogi and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Affairs Lko. and Others

Shivam Nigam and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others