Allahabad High Court
Neeraj And Another vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 23 August, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:169879
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20135 of 2023
Petitioner :- Neeraj And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Waseem
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned standing counsel for the State.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have attained the age of majority and are living happily. Their relationship is in the nature of live-in relationship. They are inter religious couple as petitioner no. 1 belongs to Hindu religious community, whereas petitioner no. 2 is Muslim. Date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 1.1.1990 in his Aadhar card and date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 15.4.2002 in her High School certificate. Thus both of them have attained the age of consent and marriage, however, they have not solemnized their marriage in any manner whatsoever. Respondent no. 5, father of petitioner no. 1, is interfering in peaceful live-in relationship of petitioners. Petitioners have constitutional right to choice of their partner and to live with any one, as they are consenting adults. Respondent no. 5 has no right to interfere in their peaceful relationship. Petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from respondent no. 5. Hon'ble Apex court in number of judgments have recognized the right to choice and right to seek protection for live-in relationship up to consenting adults. Petitioner no. 1 also moved an application before S.P. concerned wherein she has sought protection from him against her family members as they are antagonistic towards the relationship of petitioners.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents submitted that petitioners have not married till date yet, there is every possibility that they will not tie nuptial knot in near future and being inter-religious couple, their marriage will come within legislative Prohibition contained in U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 and without compliance of Section 8 and 9 of the Act, the future conversion of either of petitioners to other religion will not be in accordance with law without compliance of Section 8 and 9 of the Act. He also placed reliance on a recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023 (Kiran Rawat and another v. State of U.P. and Ors.), wherein this Court has refused to provide protection to inter religious couple who were living in live-in relationship.
The Division Bench has observed that the writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such type of dispute between two private parties. It is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt. As division Bench of this Court on similar facts denied relief sought in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioners, an interfaith couple, and in said Division Bench judgment the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Singh V. State of U.P. another, 2006 AIR (SC) 2522, have been discussed thoroughly, judicial discipline does not permit this Court to have a different view in similar case as taken by said Division Bench in Kiran Rawat's case (supra).
On the basis of foregoing discussions, writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is observed that in case petitioners approach before the appropriate forum raising their grievance, same may be considered in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 23.8.2023
Dhirendra/
