Gunjan Kashyap and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26388 of 2023 Petitioner :- Gunjan Kashyap And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Prasad Mahant Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶1Instant civil misc. writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:- "i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no. 4 not to interfere in peaceful conjugal life of the petitioners as well as directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to provide the safety and security to the petitioners from the respondent no. 4 and other relatives."

¶2Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and perused the record.

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have solemnized their marriage out of their free will and choice as well as driven by love affairs on 10.11.2022 at Arya Samaj Mandir, New Begum Bagh, Aligarh after attaining the age of majority and consent for marriage. A certificate of same is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Thereafter, they have applied on-line for registration of their marriage on

27.07.2023 and also filed a declaration of their marriage before notary public on 13.07.2023. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is recorded as 05.07.2000 in her High-School Marksheet, however, in her Aadhar Card her date of birth is mentioned as 30.04.1997, even on basis of both the documents, she has attained the age of majority. The date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is 07.07.2000 in his Aadhar Card as well as in his PAN Card. They have also filed a joint affidavit in support of their pleadings made in present petition and therefore, there is no legal impediment in their marriage.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband and their relationship is not relished and agreed by respondent No. 4, who is father of of petitioner No. 1 and is regularly hurling threats to the petitioners. They apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondent No. 4. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. Petitioner No.1 had moved an application before respondent No. 2, S.S.P. Aligarh seeking protection for herself and petitioner No. 2, but no action has been taken. The petitioners have legal right to seek protection from this Hon'ble Court in vindication of their right of life and personal liberty.

¶5Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised objection on contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶6In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the private respondent. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.

¶7The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody, including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under: "7. ... Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter."

¶8Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶9A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.

¶10The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered under "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within a period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶11It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order, in no way, expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage.

¶12Therefore, the protection order in the nature of mandamus is issued to respondent numbers 2 and 3 to secure life and liberty of petitioners.

¶13With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.10.2023 Nitika Sri. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad