Saleem Ahmad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Court No. - 84 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40464 of 2023 Petitioner :- Saleem Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umair Mahmood 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, Saleem Ahmad and Shagufta have sought following main prayer: "i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents (specially the police authorities) not interfere the peaceful married lives of the petitioners as husband and wife.

ii) Issue a writ order or directing in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondents to not to harass and humiliate the petitioners without registering any First Information Report against the petitioner.

iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding/Directing the Respondents to act in accordance with law.

iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding/directing the Respondents no. 2 and 3 to provide police security and protection to the 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, the date of birth of petitioner no.1-Saleem Ahmad is 10.7.1978 and as such he is major aged about 45 years. The petitioner no.2-Shagufta is major aged about 27 years as her date of birth is 28.4.1996 according to High School Certificate. It is further submitted that both the petitioners are major and since long there was love and affection between them and they performed Nikah according to Muslim Rites and Rituals on 14.9.2022. Since then they are living happy marital life. Not only this, the petitioners had applied for registration of their marriage on line, which was successful on 19.10.2022, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-No. 4 to this writ petition. 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. 2 was not happy with the marriage of the petitioners and, therefore, they are continuously harassing them and collusion with the police visited their home.

¶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 conjugal life of the petitioners. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police, Bijnore 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