Allahabad High Court
Smt Puja Pandey And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 July, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:141416
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18137 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt Puja Pandey And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Shankar Mishra,Shardendu Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-
i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to 3 to provide protection to life and property of petitioners so that they may peacefully lead their wedded/married life.
ii) Issue a writ order or directing in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 4 not to disturb the married life petition in any manner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Shardendu Mishra assisted by Ms. Swati Kumari, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1-Smt. Puja was previously married with one Birjesh Tiwari. Their marriage took place on 01.07.2008. However, due to matrimonial discord, the petitioner No. 1 moved an application for divorce which was granted on 19.10.2022 by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Azamgarh in Divorce Suit No. 843 of 2018 (Puja Pandey Vs. Brijesh Tiwari). A copy of judgment/ decree of divorce has been filed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. He further submitted that petitioner No. 2- Gopal Pandey was also married with one Usha Pandey who died on 03.11.2020 and her death certificate issued by Department of Medical and Health is filed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in re-marriage of both the petitioners. They have attained the age of majority long before. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 05.12.1985 and that of petitioner No. 2 is 01.05.1975 in their Aadhar Cards and other documents filed in record in support of their date of birth. The petitioners solemnized their marriage at Arya Samaj Temple, Ambedkar Nagar on 30.04.20232. They have also applied on-line for registration of their marriage, which has been marked as successful.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband and their relationship is not relished and agreed by respondent No. 4, who is father of petitioner No. 2 and is continuously hurling threats to the petitioners regarding their life and liberty. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of their family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. Petitioner No.1 had moved an application before respondent No. 2 S.P., Basti for police protection, but no action has been taken at his end and a copy thereof has been filed as Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.
5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.
6. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the private respondent. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
7. 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."
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Therefore, the protection order in the nature of mandamus is issued to respondent numbers 2 and 3 to secure life and liberty of petitioners.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.7.2023
Nitika Sri.
