Smt. Vaishali Sharma and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32804 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Vaishali Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankit Agarval Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶1Supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶2Instant civil miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to issue: "I) a writ, order or direction in the nature of Ad-Interim Mandamus commanding the respondents not to harass the petitioners and pleased to provide protection to the petitioners, Police Station Tappal, District Aligarh during pendency of the present writ petition before this Hon'ble Court."

¶3Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and perused the record.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners belong to Hindu community and they had developed intimacy and solemnized marriage after attaining majority out of their free will and choice as well as driven by love affairs on 21.01.2022 according to Hindu rites and rituals at Arya Samaj Vivah Mandir Trust, K-Block Market, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Copy of the Certificate of registration of marriage has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the petition. The date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is

12.12.2002 and that of petitioner no.2 is 30.08.1993 as per their respective High School Marksheets. 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.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioners has averred in the writ petition that petitioners are living as wife and husband after marriage at the place of petitioner no.2 but their relationship is not relished and agreed by respondent Nos.4 and 5, who are father and uncle respectively of petitioner No. 1 and they are regularly hurling threats to the petitioners. They apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and their family members. The petitioners have apprehension that private respondents can eliminate them for the honour of their family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

¶6It is further stated that a missing report has been lodged with regard to petitioner no.1 by respondent no.5 at P.S. Tappal, District Aligarh on 20.01.2023. However, there is no information with regard to lodging of any FIR.

¶7Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel raised objection on contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶8In 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.

¶9The 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."

¶10Having 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.

¶11A 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.

¶12It 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.

¶13Therefore, the protection order in the nature of mandamus is issued to respondent numbers 2 and 3 to secure life and liberty of petitioners.

¶14With 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 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad