Allahabad High Court
Smt.Meera Gautam And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 11 August, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:163384
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20756 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt.Meera Gautam And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Afzal Ansari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners, is taken on record.
2. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-
a) issue a writ, order or directing in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 not to interfere in the peaceful living in relationship life as the petitioners are major and have decided to live-in relationship with each other without any undue pressure or threat from any quarter,
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Hari Om Singh and perused the record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 was married with one Chandra Prakash and two children were born out of their wedlock, however the relationship between husband and wife got strained and the petitioner No. 1 parted her ways from her husband. She met petitioner no. 2, who is working in the some Mall where petitioner works to earn her livelihood since 2021 prior to developing intimacy with petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 1 left her matrimonial home in the year 2020 and shifted to Bijnor city to earn her livelihood. Petitioner no. 1-Meera Gautam, is major lady aged around 38 years, her date of birth is mentioned as 01.01.1985 in her Aadhar Card, the date of birth of petitioner No. 2- Jahid is 01.01.1984 in his Aadhar Card. They are presently living in live-in relationship driven by love affairs free will and choice. Petitioner No.2 Jahid Khand has supported the averments made in petition by his own affidavit. There are catena of decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court, however, joint affidavit is being filed today through supplementary affidavit.
5. Learned counsel placed reliance on Hon?ble Apex Court in Lata Singh vs State Of U.P. & Another, AIR 2006 SC 2522, wherein the petitioners, who were major got married at a temple and a child was born out of their wedlock also. They were inter-caste couple and a missing report was lodged by brother of petitioner-Lata Singh on 04.11.2000 and subsequently, a case under Sections 366 and 368 I.P.C. was registered. Hon?be Apex Court observed in paragraph14 that There is no dispute that the petitioner is major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under theHindu Marriage Actor any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives. In paragraph17, Hon?ble Apex Court observed that If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter- religious marriage. Hon?ble Apex Court issued direction to administration/police authorities throughout the country to ensure that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple are not harassed by any one nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and any one who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law. Learned counsel further submitted that Hon?ble Apex Court in several other judgments also have recognized live-in relationship of two consenting adults and granted protection to them from any retaliating action by her relatives or some other persons, who are interfering in the peaceful relationship or hurling threats to them.
6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents, Sri Hari Om Singh, placed reliance on judgment of Asha Devi Vs. State of U.P in Writ - C No. - 18743 of 2020, where Division Bench of this Court considered the dictum of Hon?ble Apex Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. Indra Sarma Vs. V. K.V. Sarma2, wherein Hon?ble Supreme Court held that live-in relationship between two consenting adults of heterosexual sex does not amount to any offence even though it may be perceived as immoral. However, in paragraph 13 this Court observed thatTill a decree of divorce is passed the marriage subsist. Any other marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage would constitute an offence underSection 494I.P.C. read withSection 17of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the person, inspite of his conversion to some other religion would be liable to be prosecuted for the offence of bigamy, vide Lily Thomas and another Vs. Union of India and others. The Division Bench of this Court in - Kiran Rawat And Another Vs. - State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. - 3310 of 2023, vide order dated 28.04.2023, refused to issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to State for protection of inter-religious couple, who were stated to be living in live-in relationship and paragraph 21 of that judgment observed that in Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage and in that judgment this Court, considered a number of judgments of Hon?ble Apex Court including Lata Singh Versus State of U.P. & another, AIR 2006 SC 2522, Indra Sarma versus V.K.V. Sarma 2013 (15) 755, D Velusamy versus D Patchaiammal 2010 (10) SCC 469 and also some other judgments of Hon?ble Apex Court.
7. From perusal of petition, it appears that petitioners are inter-religious couple and no divorce have been granted to petitioner No. 1 from her husband by orders of any competent Court, they are stated to be living in live-in relationship, therefore, their relationship cannot be held as legal on the facts and circumstances of the case. Considering the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find this a fit case in which a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus is liable to be issued for authorities to grant protection to the petitioners from private respondent and his associates.
8. In view of the foregoing discussions, present petition stands disposed of with above observations
Order Date :- 11.8.2023
Nitika Sri.
