Allahabad High Court
Priyanka Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 10 January, 2023
Bench: Deepak Verma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 78
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39669 of 2022
Petitioner :- Priyanka Singh And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Singh,Kailash Prasad Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State-respondents and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed to issue mandamus commanding and directing the respondents police authority to provide police protection regarding peaceful live-in relationship of the petitioners against respondent no.6.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioner nos.1 and 2 are major and in support of the majority, has placed reliance on Aadhar Cards, which are annexed as Annexure nos.1 & 2 to the writ petition. Petitioner nos. 1 & 2 are voluntarily live-in relationship as husband and wife without any pressure and threat. Learned counsel for the petitioners next argued that petitioners have received some threat from respondents and he next argued that Hon'ble Apex Court in various judgments has held that no one can interfere in peaceful living of major person.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. & ors., 2018 SCC Online SC 343, has held as under:
"75. ...The choice of a partner whether within or outside marriage lies within the exclusive domain of each individual. Intimacies of marriage lie within a core zone of privacy, which is inviolable. The absolute right of an individual to choose a life partner is not in the least affected by matters of faith. The Constitution guarantees to each individual the right freely to practise, profess and propagate religion. Choices of faith and belief as indeed choices in matters of marriage lie within an area where individual autonomy is supreme. The law prescribes conditions for a valid marriage. It provides remedies when relationships run aground. Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide on these matters. They form the essence of personal liberty under the Constitution...."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234, 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 married life. In case any disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach the Superintendent of Police/ S.S.P. 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 record are fabricated or forged, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.1.2023
SKD
