Disposed¶21

Smt. Madhuri Baghel and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2025WRIC/42457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; WRIT-C No. 42457 of 2025; Smt. Madhuri Baghel; second marriage after divorce; threat to life and liberty by private respondent; protection of married adult couple; Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522; right of majors to live together; Superintendent of Police to examine grievance; disposal at fresh motion stage; recall liberty; automatic vacation of order upon FIR; Vikram D. Chauhan, J.; December 10, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall examine their grievance and take all steps warranted in law to ensure their life and liberty is not interfered with by the private respondent(s); subject to recall liberty to private respondents and automatic vacation of the order if an FIR is lodged. ¶21

Smt. Madhuri Baghel and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the private respondent's interference with, and threats to, the life and liberty of the adult married petitioners warrants protective directions from the Court.

¶12

Court's answer

Applying Lata Singh, adult petitioners have the right to live with a person of their choice, and the principle laid down by the Apex Court is attracted to this case.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

If any interference with the petitioners' life and liberty is made or any threat extended, the petitioners shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall examine their grievance and take all steps warranted in law to ensure their life and liberty is not interfered with.

¶19

Key takeaways

As the writ petition was disposed of at the stage of fresh motion without notice to the private respondents, they are given liberty to file a recall if any averment in the writ petition is found to be incorrect.ratio¶20
The protective order shall stand automatically vacated in case any First Information Report has been lodged in the matter.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a couple (each previously divorced, marrying each other on 03.11.2025) alleging interference by a private respondent and threats to their life and liberty; disposed of at the fresh motion stage without notice to private respondents. Relying on Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, the Court held that major individuals have the right to live with a person of their choice and that the principle in Lata Singh is attracted where the petitioners are majors. The Court observed that in case of any interference with, or threat to, the petitioners' life and liberty, they may approach the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall examine the grievance and take all steps warranted in law to protect them. Private respondents were given liberty to seek recall if any averment is incorrect, and the order stands automatically vacated if any First Information Report is lodged in the matter.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 42457 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Madhuri Baghel And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Chandan Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 76

¶10

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that this is the second marriage of the both the petitioners after the previous divorce and the marriage has taken place on 03.11.2025.

¶12

Petitioners claim to be major and are stated to be married with each other. They have approached this Court with grievance that private respondent is interfering with their peaceful relationship and there is a threat of their life and liberty. It is urged that though the concerned police authorities have been informed but no decision has yet been taken.

¶13

It is settled by the Apex Court in Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522, that it is the right of major individuals to live together or to solemnize marriage and no interference with such right is permissible. Para 17 of the said judgment is reproduced:-

¶14

"17. The caste system is a curse on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation at a time when we have to be united to face the challenges before the nation unitedly. Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in the national interest as they will result in destroying the caste system. However, disturbing news are coming from several parts of the country that young men and women who undergo inter-caste marriage, are threatened with violence, or violence is actually committed on them. In our opinion, such acts of violence or threats or harassment are wholly illegal and those who commit them must be severely punished. This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can

¶15

WRIC No. 42457 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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 are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one 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."

¶18

Although above observations were made by the Supreme Court in a petition filed by a married couple from different faiths, but the principle laid down would clearly be attracted in the present case also, as the petitioners are major and have the right to live with a person of their choice.

¶19

In view of the law settled, it goes without saying that in case any interference with the life and liberty of the petitioners is made or any threat is extended to them, they shall be at liberty to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police, who shall examine petitioners' grievance and take all steps, as may be warranted in law, to ensure that life and liberty of the petitioners is not interfered with by private respondent(s).

¶20

Since the writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of fresh motion itself and notices have not been issued to private respondent, as such, liberty is given to them to file a recall, in case any of the averments made in the writ petition are found to be incorrect, and this order shall stand automatically vacated, in case any First Information Report has been lodged in the matter.

¶21

Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶22

(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

¶23

December 10, 2025 Rama Kant

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Madhuri Baghel and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Madhuri Baghel and Another v. State of U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ashiq Ali vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shivakant Trivedi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ramesh Chand Gupta vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Others

Sunil Bhagat vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sajid vs State of U.P. and Another