Allahabad High Court
Prabha Singh And Anothers vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 1 December, 2022
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36442 of 2022
Petitioner :- Prabha Singh And Anothers
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Javed Raza
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to protect the life and person of the petitioners and further to direct the respondent no. 4 and his other relatives not to interfered in the peaceful living life.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners are Hindu by religion and they have love affairs and have decided to live together in a live-in and further to marry each other in accordance with law. They are in live-in by law. Both petitioners are major and they have filed their high-school examination certificate in support of their date of birth in which date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 29.7.2004, whereas that of the petitioner no. 2 is 12.1.2003. They are living together. Petitioner no. 2 is working in a private job and earn near about Rs. 12,000/- per month and also does forming work in his agricultural land. Father of the petitioner no. 1 is continuously harassing them and for that reason petitioner no. 1 has moved an application before S.S.P., Pilibhit for seeking protection, however, no response is forthcoming from police authorities. Respondent no. 4 is threatening the petitioners to stay away with each other and for solemnizing the marriage, therefore, respondent no. 2 be directed to accord protection to petitioners in accordance with law. It is further submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and others, 2018 (5) R.C.R. (Criminal) 981 has held that " the right to exercise Assertion of choice is an insegregable facet of liberty and dignity. That is why the French philosopher and thinker, Simone Weil, has said:- "Liberty, taking the word in its concrete sense consists in the ability to choose." At this stage, one cannot also lose sight of honour killings which are prevalent in northern parts of India, particularly in parts of States of Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Honour killing is a result of people marrying about their family's acceptance, and sometimes for marrying outside their caste or religion. Once an individual, who is major, has chosen his/her partner, it is not for any other persons, be it a family member, to object and cause a hindrance to their peaceful existence. It is for the State at this juncture, to ensure their protection and their personal liberty. It would be a travesty of justice in case protection is denied to persons who have opted to reside together without sanctity of marriage and such persons have to face dire consequences at the hands of persons from whom protection is sought. In case such a course is adopted and protection denied, the courts would also be failing in their duty to provide its citizens a right to their life and liberty as enshrined under Article 221 of the Constitution of India and to uphold to the Rule of law."
He has further placed reliance in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Khushboo Vs. Kanniammal, (2010) 5 SCC 600, in which it is held that live in relationship is permissible and the act of two adults living together cannot be considered illegal or unlawful, while further holding that the issue of morality and criminality are not co-extensive. If the petitioners herein have not committed any offence, this court sees no reason as to why their prayer for grant of protection cannot be acceded to. Therefore, with due respect to the judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches, who have denied protection to couples who are in live in relationship, this Court is unable to adopt the same view.
Without entering upon a exercise to evaluate the evidentiary value of the documents placed on file while disposing of with direction to respondent no. 2 S.P., Pilibhit to decide representation of the petitioner no. 1 dated 20.11.2022 which is annexed at page 16 to 17 of the affidavit within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and grant them protection, if any threat to their life and liberty is perceived. It is made clear that this order shall not be taken to protect the petitioners from legal action for violation of law, if any committed by them.
Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.12.2022
A.P. Pandey
