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

Court No. - 84 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40487 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Rinu Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Daya Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the record.

¶2By means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, namely, Smt. Reena and Rishi Pal have sought following main prayer: "Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 & 3 to provide protection to the petitiors for their personal life and liberty and not to interfere in peaceful married life of petitioners."

3.Petitioners have filed a joint affidavit in support of the averments of the petition.

¶4The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that according to High School Certificate-cum-Marksheet, the date of birth of petitioner no.1-Renu Devi is 20.2.2000 and as such she is major aged about 23 years. The petitioner no.2-Happy Choudhary is also major aged about 22 years as his date of birth is 14.7.2001 according to High School Marksheet. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 has married with petitioner no. 2 on 6.11.2023 on her own volition according to Hindu Rites and Customs at Arya Samaj Vaidik Vivah Sanskar Trust, Ghaziabad, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1. Not only this, they had applied for registration of their marriage on line, which was successful on

6.11.2023, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-No. 2 to this writ petition. Since then they are living happy marital life. It is also urged that it is their first marriage.Till date, neither any FIR has been lodged nor any other criminal proceeding has been initiated against petitioner no. 2.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that respondent no. 4, the father of petitioner no. 1 wants to marry his daughter (petitioner no. 1) with aged person, which was objected by petitioner no. 1 and solemnised her marriage as stated above.

¶6Learned Standing Counsel refuted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but could not deny the facts and law in this behalf.

¶7In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to 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.

¶8The 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, as well as of 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."

¶9Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.

¶10Respondent no. 4 is directed not to create any hindrance in the peaceful living of petitioners. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Senior Superintendent of Police, Muzaffar Nagar i.e., respondent no.2, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.

¶11A liberty is granted to the respondent no. 4 that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for this order.

¶12It is also 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.

¶13With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶14No order as to costs. Order Date :- 2.12.2023 M. Tarik High Court of Judicature at Allahabad