Allahabad High Court
Smt. Tamanna And Another vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 24 August, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:170944
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24362 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Tamanna And Another
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ali Qambar Zaidi,Mohammad Danish
Counsel for Respondent :- CSC,Sundeep Shukla
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents.
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 solemnized their marriage driven by love, free will and choice at Arya Samaj, Muzaffar Nagar on 9.5.2023 according to Hindu rites and rituals. They also applied online for registration of their marriage. They have filed joint affidavit in support of pleadings in writ petition. They have attained the age of majority. Date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 21.12.2001 in his T.C. issued from Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan, Agra Region, after failing in Class 9th examination. Some objection was raised on authenticity of date of birth mentioned in photocopy of the said Transfer Certificate by learned counsel for the private respondent, therefore original T.C. is being produced before this Court for kind perusal, wherein date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as "21.12.2001 in words as well as in figure which implies that petitioner no. 2 has attained the age of 21 years on the date of alleged marriage. Petitioners started living as husband and wife after marriage but respondent no. 4 who is father of petitioner no. 1 is strongly opposed to marriage and relationship of the petitioners and is hurling constant threats to them, whereas none of the respondents have any legal and statutory right to interfere in peaceful marital life of the petitioners. Despite that respondent no. 4 and family members of petitioner no. 1 are harassing the petitioners continuously. Petitioner no. 1 moved an application before S.S.P., Muzaffar Nagar, on 18.7.2023, seeking protection for herself and petitioner no. 2 but no action has been taken thereon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & Ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343. Paragraph no. 53 and 54 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"53. 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. Faith of a person is intrinsic to his/her meaningful existence. To have the freedom of faith is essential to his/her autonomy; and it strengthens the core norms of the Constitution. Choosing a faith is the substratum of individually and sans it, the right of choice becomes a shadow. It has to be remembered that the realization of a right is more important than the conferment of the right. Such actualization indeed ostracises any kind of societal notoriety and keeps at bay the patriachal supremacy. It is so because the individualistic faith and expression of choice are fundamental for the fructification of the right. Thus, we would like to call it indispensable preliminary condition.
54. Non-acceptance of her choice would simply mean creating discomfort to the constitutional right by a Constitution 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. Sans lawful sanction, the centripodal value of liberty should allow an individual to write his/her script. The individual signature is the insignia of the concept."
Per contra, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 submitted that respondent no. 4 has already lodged a missing report with P.S. concerned regarding non-traceability of petitioner no. 1, who is daughter of respondent no. 4. It is further submitted that date of birth recorded in Adhar Card is not an authentic proof of date of birth of a person. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 also placed reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Morya Vs. Anamika, passed in First Appeal No. 830 of 2022, vide order dated 17.11.2022, wherein issue was framed to the effect that whether marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj is a valid proof of marriage?
This Court while deciding the said issue placed reliance on a judgment in the case of Seema vs. Ashwini Kumar, (2006) 2 SCC 578, held that from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is evident that though registration itself cannot be a proof of valid marriage per se, and would not be the determinative factor regarding validity of a marriage, yet it has a great evidentiary value. The plaintiff-appellant has neither led any evidence nor filed any certificate of marriage as proof of marriage under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 read with Uttar Pradesh Hindu Marriage Rules, 1973 or the Uttar Pradesh Registration of Marriage Rules, 2017, thus we have no difficulty to hold that marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj has no statutory force.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for validity of Hindu marriage performance of certain rituals is compulsory like Saptapadi under Hindu Marriage Act and issuance of any certificate by recognized Institution is not necessary for granting validity to Hindu marriage. Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of any writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to State Authorities for granting protection to petitioners from respondent no. 4 and any other person.
The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions has settled the law that where a boy and a girl are major and they are living with their free will, then, nobody, including their parents, has authority to interfere with their living together. Reference may be made to the judgements of the Supreme Court in the cases of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396, which have consistently been followed by the Supreme Court and this Court in Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534. The Supreme Court in Gian Devi (supra) has held as under:
"7. ... Whatever may be the date of birth of the petitioner, the fact remains that she is at present more than 18 years of age. As the petitioner is sui juris no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay, nor can any restriction be imposed regarding the place where she should stay. The court or the relatives of the petitioner can also not substitute their opinion or preference for that of the petitioner in such a matter."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police concerned, with a copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.
The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered under "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within a period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the alleged marriage of the petitioners and this order, in no way, expresses opinion about the validity of their marriage.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Let the original Transfer Certificate of the petitioner no. 2 be returned to learned counsel for the petitioners.
Order Date :- 24.8.2023
A.P. Pandey
