Allahabad High Court
Farheen And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 25 May, 2022
Bench: Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 9
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3196 of 2022
Petitioner :- Farheen And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Waris Farooqui
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.
Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the record.
By way of the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties not to harass the petitioners and not to interfere in their peaceful matrimonial life except in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 Farheen carries the date of birth 06.02.2000 as per the Aadhar Card and the petitioner no.2 Shaban Ali claims himself to be aged about 28 years. Both of them claim themselves to be living together and have developed live-in relationship. However, no other convincing documents have been produced reflecting conclusively on the aspect of the date of birth of the petitioner no.1, Farheen.
Several aspects of their lives have been elaborated and brought to our notice by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Further, the petitioners' claim is that there is apprehension that respondent no.4 may take any action that would cause penal consequences and may be that F.I.R. is lodged but no F.I.R. under these circumstances can be lodged when two major persons have developed live-in relationship out of their own freewill.
Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & others, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 368 as well asNandakumar & another v. State of Kerala, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 602 and protection has been sought from this Court.
We have given thoughtful considerations to the averments contained in various paragraphs of the petition and also perused the record.
In a recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Shafin Jahan (supra), after stating the law pertaining to writ of Habeas Corpus, this writ has been considered as "a great constitutional privilege" or "the first security of civil liberty". The Court made the following pertinent observations:-
"27.Thus, the pivotal purpose of the said writ is to see that no one is deprived of his/her liberty without sanction of law. It is the primary duty of the State to see that the said right is not sullied in any manner whatsoever and its sanctity is not affected by any kind of subterfuge................."
The Court also emphasized due importance to the right of choice of an adult person which the Constitution accords to an adult person as under:-
"52.It is obligatory to state here that expression of choice in accord with law is acceptance of individual identity. Curtailment of that expression and the ultimate action emanating therefrom on the conceptual structuralism of obeisance to the societal will destroy the individualistic entity of a person. The social values and morals have their space but they are not above the constitutionally guaranteed freedom. The said freedom is both a constitutional and a human right. Deprivation of that freedom which is ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is impermissible..........."
"53.Non-acceptance of her choice would simply mean creating discomfort to the constitutional right by a constitutional court which is meant to be the protector of fundamental rights. Such a situation cannot remotely be conceived. The duty of the court is to uphold the right and not to abridge the sphere of the right unless there is a valid authority of law......."
In paragraph 10 of Nandakumar (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"10............For our purposes, it is sufficient to note that both Appellant 1 and Thushara are major. Even if they were not competent to enter into wedlock (which position itself is disputed), they have right to live together even outside wedlock. It would not be out of place to mention that ?live-in relationship? is now recognised by the legislature itself which has found its place under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005."
It is stated that both the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 have developed live-in relationship out of their own freewill, and the claim is that two major persons, petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 have out of their own free will have developed live-in relationship, then no-one else can disturb their peaceful living in relationship.
In our considered opinion, it is up to the petitioners to prove that they are above 18 years of age and they should co-operate with the Investigating Officer and it will be incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to ascertain by all possible means the actual age of the petitioner no.1, Farheen and basing upon that he may take future course of action in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is finally disposed of.
It is clarified that we have not observed anything on the merits of the case.
Order Date :- 25.5.2022
kvg/-
