Shikha Kashyap and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1618 of 2026

¶3

Shikha Kashyap And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 11

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite parties no.4 & 5 is dispensed with.

¶12

Instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to provide protection to the petitioners so that the life and liberty of the petitioners could be safe along with a further prayer to restrain the opposite party no. 4 & 5 not to disturb the peaceful life of the petitioners.

¶13

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 in a temple. In support of petitioners being major, they have annexed their High School Marksheets. It is contended that opposite parties no.4 & 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.

¶14

In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of of the Hon'ble

¶15

CRLP No. 1618 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

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:-

¶18

"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 threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such intercaste 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."

¶19

Learned A.G.A. states that the petitioners have not annexed their certificate of marriage. He further states that a missing person report has also been lodged pertaining to petitioner No.1 by the respondents No.4 & 5.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the petitioners are not of marriageable age, they could not solemnize the marriage and, therefore, no marriage certificate could be annexed. It is further submitted that they are presently living together.

¶21

In this regard, it would be apt to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nandkumar & Anr vs State of Kerala & Ors : (2018) 16 SCC 602 , wherein the Apex Court has observed as under:-

¶22

"10. .... For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that live-in relationship is now recognised by the legislature itself which has found its

¶23

CRLP No. 1618 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."

¶26

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.

¶27

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.

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

February 19, 2026

¶31

prateek

¶32

Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shikha Kashyap and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shikha Kashyap and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rachna Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Others

Mohd. Arzan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Asgari vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Preeti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Upasna and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others