Allahabad High Court
Mrs. Manisha Khatun And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17745 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mrs. Manisha Khatun And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yatharth Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioners before this Court claim to be major and further they claim to have entered into a wedlock out of their free will and choice through customs and practice of Muslim religion, on 15.06.2022 and they further claim that they have applied for registration of marriage with Marriage Registration Officer under the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017.
In support of their above pleas, the High School Mark sheet of petitioner No.1 has been filed as Annexure-1 to the petition issued on 15.5.2016 by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh and in which the date of birth of the petitioner No.1 is recorded as 02.01.2001. So also, the High School Mark sheet of petitioner No.2 issued by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttar Pradesh dated 8.6.2013 has been filed in which date of birth of petitioner No.2 is recorded as 12.10.1998. The petitioners have also brought on record Nikahnama acknowledging the factum of marriage.
Thus, the petitioners claim to be validly married young couple and in this petition, they have submitted that they have tied up matrimonial knot with each other against the wish and desire of parents of petitioner No.1 and so resultantly, the parents of petitioner No.1, particularly respondent No.3 is trying to harass the petitioner and to ensure that the petitioner No.1 somehow gets out of the wedlock.
It is also submitted that no first information report has been lodged against the petitioners till date in connection with their entering into wedlock.
The petitioners submit that they have sought protection from the police in above regard by moving an application before the Superintendent of Police, Ballia on 16.06.2022 but they do not see any help coming forward from the police.
It is thus submitted that since the petitioners are major and so they can have their choice of living with each other even if their parents do not agree to such living.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in the above regard has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another [(2006) 5 SCC 475], in which a general direction was issued to the administration/police authorities by the Supreme Court, to be applicable throughout the country to ensure that if any boy or girl who is major undertakes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence. The direction was issued on the basic principle that whoever is major, has a choice of living with a life partner may be by entering into inter-caste or inter-religious marriage of his/her free will and there is no bar under any law for inter-caste or inter-religious marriage.
Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Asha Ranjan Vs. State of Bihar [(2017) 4 SCC 397], in which it was held that choice of woman in choosing her partner in life is a legitimate constitutional right.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that these above judgments have come to be considered and reiterated with approval by the Supreme Court in the case of Shakti Vahini Vs. Union of India and others [(2018) 7 SCC 192], in which vide para 41 it was held that consent of the family or the community or the clan is not necessary when two adult individuals agree to enter into wedlock and then vide para 44, the Court observed that the concept of liberty has to be weighed and tested on the touchstone of constitutional sensitivity, protection and values it stands for. The Court further observed that fundamental feature of dignified existence is to assert for dignity that has the spark of divinity and the realisation of choice within the parameters of law without any kind of subjugation. The Court further went on observing vide para 45 that choice of an individual is an inextricable part of dignity, for dignity cannot be thought of where there is erosion of choice. The Court further added that in absence of limitation like constitutional limitation, no one can be permitted to interfere in the fructification of the said choice and in the event right to express one's own choice is obstructed, it would be extremely difficult to think of dignity in its sanctified completeness.
Having gone through the above authorities where the Supreme Court has extensively dealt with the individual liberty viz a viz parents' assertion of their desire and wish in the name of well being upon their major son and daughter, prima facie, I find a case has been made out for interference.
Issue notice to respondent No.3 returnable within 8 weeks.
Steps for service be taken within 2 weeks.
List on the date indicated in the notice.
In the meanwhile and until further orders of this Court, it is hereby provided that none of the respondent, namely, respondent No. 2 shall in any manner interfere with the matrimonial relationship of the petitioners, nor shall in any manner interfere with their liberty.
The respondent No. 2 is further directed to ensure that no private individual at the instance of respondent No.3 subjects the petitioners to unnecessary harassment.
The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate this order to the respondent No.2 forthwith.
Order Date :- 27.6.2022
Deepika
