Smt. Arsala Parveen and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15972 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Arsala Parveen And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rupendra Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶1The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.

¶2The petitioners claim that they are major. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have solemnized their marriage on 13.4.2023 according to Muslim rites and rituals for which Nikahnama dated 13.4.2023 has been executed, copy of the original Nikahnama has been filed as annexure-03 to the petition.

¶3In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their High School Certificate and Adhar Card; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is shown as 14.2.1996 and that of petitioner no. 1 as 01.01.2003. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have moved online application on 5.5.2023 to get their marriage registered before the marriage registration officer/Registrar, which is annexed as annexure-04 to the writ petition. Respondent no. 04, father of petitioner no.1, was averse to the marriage of the petitioners and intended to give her hand to some other person, however, till date no F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner no. 2. The petitioners have moved an application before S.S.P. Moradabad on

29.4.2023 for seeking protection from respondent no. 4 but no action has been taken. The respondent no. 4 even had tried to kidnap petitioner no. 1 on 28.4.2023 when she had gone for getting pregnancy test with petitioner no. 2 where she was anyhow rescued by the passerby.

¶4The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband. 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.

¶5As per office report dated 26.09.2023, notice issued to respondent no.4 on the given address has been returned back unserved with remark ''no such person in the address".

¶6Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that there is no other address of respondent no.4 in his knowledge and the same address has been mentioned in Adhar Card of petitioner no.2 also.

¶7Per contra, learned AGA submits that as per instructions received from the police station concerned, the petitioners are not residing on the address mentioned in the petition.

¶8According to report of a Corporator, Nagar Panchayat Kanth, Moradabad, at present, the petitioners are residing in Maharashtra, Kotvadhi as husband and wife for the last five months.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that though petitioner no.2 is doing some private job at Pune, Maharashtra to earn his livelihood but he use to visit his parental place every now and then.

¶10Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶11The 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."

¶12Having 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.

¶13A 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.

¶14The 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.

¶15It 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.

¶16Therefore, the protection order in the nature of mandamus is issued to respondent numbers 2 and 3 to secure life and liberty of petitioners.

¶17With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 28.10.2023 Madhurima High Court of Judicature at Allahabad