Disposed

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

Allahabad HC19 Feb 2026CRLP/1624/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a couple alleging they married voluntarily as majors and faced hindrance from a family member, seeking protection of their marital life and liberty. Court disposed of the petition directing authorities not to interfere with their peaceful life and liberty.

What did the court decide?

Direction to opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of petitioners; marriage registration directed within two months.

Preeti and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1624 of 2026

Preeti And Another

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jayveer Rajput
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 interfere in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners and to provide protection to them.

¶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 12.02.2026 in Arya Samaj Temple, Aliganj, Lucknow. A copy of the marriage certificate has been enclosed as Annexure No.1 to this petition. In support of the petitioners being major, the petitioner no.1 has annexed her High School Mark-sheet while the petitioner no.2 has filed his Adhar card. Further the petitioners in the writ petition duly supported by an affidavit have indicated 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 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

¶17

CRLP No. 1624 of 2026

¶18

¶19

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."

¶20

6. Learned A.G.A. points out that a missing person report pertaining to petitioner No.1 has been lodged by the respondent No.4.

¶21

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.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

February 19, 2026 prateek

¶27

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

¶28

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

Preeti 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?

Preeti 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

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

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