Disposed¶21

Priti Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2026CRLP/12160/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12160 of 2025, decided January 6, 2026: mandamus sought for protection of a newly married couple of purportedly major age from harassment by opposite party no. 5; petition disposed of with a non-interference direction protecting life and liberty under Article 21; reliance placed on Lata Singh (2006) 5 SCC 475; protective order stands automatically discharged if any F.I.R. already exists on the issue; age of petitioners and validity of marriage expressly left unadjudicated.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the opposite parties not to interfere in the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner; the order automatically stands discharged if any F.I.R. is already registered on the issue. ¶21

Priti Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12160 of 2025

¶3

Priti Yadav And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Shanker Lal Pandey 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 to 4.

¶12

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no.5 is dispensed with.

¶13

Instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to harass the petitioners on behest of the opposite party no. 5 and to ensure protection of lives of the petitioners.

¶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 7.12.2025, copy of the marriage certificate issued by the Marriage Registrar has been enclosed as Annexure No.2 to this petition. In support of the petitioners being major, the petitioner no.1 has annexed photocopies of her High School Certificate-cum-Marks sheet as well as Aadhar Card while the petitioner no.2 has also annexed photocopies of the High School Certificate-cum-Marks sheet as well as Aadhar Card to this petition from which it emerges that both the petitioners are major. It is contended that opposite party no.5 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 the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another- 2006 (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 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 cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give

¶17

CRLP No. 12160 of 2025

¶18

¶19

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

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

¶25

January 6, 2026 AKK

¶26

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

Priti Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indrapal and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and 4 Others

Pratima Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Vishal Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Kunal @ Kunal Shukla and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Kripashankar Vimal @ Kripashankar Jagannath Vimal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Others

Ashish Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others