Smt. Laxmi Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32224 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Laxmi Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kashi Nath Singh Yadav 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) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful living of the petitioners.

ii) a writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to visit and knock the door of the petitioners."

¶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 12.09.2023 at Alopi Mata Mandir, District-Prayagraj, U.P. in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals, after attaining the age of majority and consent for marriage. They also filed a declaration before Notary Public with regard to factum of their marriage on

12.09.2023 and applied on-line for registration of their marriage. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is recorded as

01.01.1987 and that of petitioner No. 2 as 01.01.1999 in their respective Aadhar Cards. 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 mother of petitioner No. 1. She is strongly opposed to relationship and marriage of petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 is engaged in private job and earns around Rs. 15,000/- per month and is able to maintain his wife. Respondent No. 4 is regularly hurling threats to the petitioners of dire consequences. They apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondent No.

¶4It 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.P. District-Sambhal seeking protection for herself and petitioner No. 2, but no action has been taken.

¶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 :- 28.10.2023 Nitika Sri. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad