Allahabad High Court
Shivani & Another vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others on 3 November, 2014
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56603 of 2014
Petitioner :- Shivani & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Sandeep Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Siddharth Singh Shreenet, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent.
3. It is stated in paragraph no. 3 and 4 that the date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is 10.12.1993 and the date of birth of the petitioner No.2 is 3.10.1992 as per high school mark sheets, copies of which have been filed as Annexure Nos. 3 and 4. It is stated in paragraph Nos. 5 that both have married with each other on out of their own free will on 15.9.2014. It is stated that as per knowledge of the petitioners, no F.I.R. has been lodged against them. Both the petitioners appear to be major.
4. Both the petitioner are present in the Court and are identified by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Both the petitioner appears to be major as per averments made and the papers filed with the writ petition.
5. The petitioners claim to be adults and married to each other of their own freewill, and for that they are being threatened and harassed.
6. In the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534, this Court having analysed the law laid down by the apex court as well as by this Court in the cases cited in the judgment, held 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.
7. In the said case the Court also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396. It is apt to extract relevant paragraph 28 and 29 of the said judgment, which reads as under :-
"28. ..... Often young couples who fall in love have to seek shelter in the police lines or protection homes, to avoid the wrath of kangaroo courts. We have held in Lata Singh case that there is nothing "honourable" in "honour" killings, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted persons with feudal minds. In our opinion honour killings, for whatever reason, come within the category of the rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment. It is time to stamp out these barbaric, feudal practices which are a slur on our nation. This is necessary as a deterrent for such outrageous, uncivilised behavior. All persons who are planning to perpetrate "honour" killings should know that the gallows await them.
29. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Registrars General/ Registrars of all the High Courts who shall circulate the same to all the Judges of the Courts. The Registrars General/ Registrars of the High Courts will also circulate copies of the same to all the Sessions Judges/ Additional Sessions Judges in the States/Union Territories. Copies of the judgment shall also be sent to all the Chief Secretaries/ Home Secretaries/ Directors General of Police of all States/ Union Territories in the country. The Home Secretaries and Directors General of Police will circulate the same to all SSPs/SPs in the States/Union Territories for information."
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that petitioners are at liberty to live together. 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 concerned Senior Superintendent of Police or Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
9. However, this order in no way expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage and genuineness of their marriage certificate. This order shall not protect the petitioners against any action or proceedings pursuant to any F.I.R. or complaint case against them.
Order Date :- 3.11.2014
MT**
