Allahabad High Court
Smt. Rinku And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors. on 30 June, 2016
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29610 of 2016
Petitioner :- Smt. Rinku And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
1.Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt. Poonam, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2.Both the petitioners are present in the Court and they have been identified by their learned counsel. Both the petitioners appear to be major.
3.In paragraph no.3 of the petition it is stated that the date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 10.1.1998, as per High School Certificate. It is further stated that the petitioner no.2 is also major and his date of birth is of the year 1992, as per copy of the election ID card filed as Annexure-2. It is also stated that both the petitioners have married with each other on 17.06.2016. It is further stated that no FIR has been lodged against the petitioners till date and the petitioners have married with each other by their own free will, a copy of which is filed as Annexure-3.
4.The petitioners claim to be adult and married to each other of their own freewill, and for that they are being threatened and harassed.
5.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 no authority to interfere with their living together.
6.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 paragraphs 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."
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a 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.
8. However, this order in no way expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage. This order shall not protect the petitioners against any action or proceedings pursuant to any F.I.R. or complaint case against him/her/them.
Order Date :- 30.6.2016
Ak/
