Allahabad High Court
Smt. Pinki Rani And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 June, 2016
Bench: Pradeep Kumar Baghel
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28525 of 2016
Petitioner :- Smt. Pinki Rani And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.
The petitioners claim that they are adults and they have married with each other out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the fourth respondent and her other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.
In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record documents and educational certificates. The petitioner no. 1 has filed xerox copy of her Marks Sheet of High School Examination-2006, which indicates that her date of birth is 3rd May, 1989. The petitioner no. 2 has also brought on record his Adhar Card, according to which his date of birth is 1st January, 1995. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.
Both the petitioners are present in the Court and are identified by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
The petitioners have averred in paragraph-13 of the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband and they have apprehension that the respondents can adopt coercive method against them.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the fourth 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.
The 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 judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234, which has consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court.
Having 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Sambhal, the second respondent, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
A liberty is granted to the fourth respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.
It 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 and genuineness of their marriage certificate, if any.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 14.6.2016
AU
