Allahabad High Court
Aanchal And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 5 October, 2023
Bench: Ram Manohar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:192752
Court No. - 50
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30730 of 2023
Petitioner :- Aanchal And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girjesh Kumar Srivastava,Abhishek
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition with a prayer to issue writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.3 not to interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners and further to issue a mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to provide protection to the petitioners from respondent No.3 and refrain him from interfering the peaceful married life of the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have attained age of majority as date of birth of petitioner No.1 is mentioned as 01.01.2005 in her Adhaar Card and that of petitioner No.2 is 20.7.2003 as recorded in his High School marksheet. He further submitted that the petitioners have not yet married to each other as petitioner No.2 is short of attaining the age of 21 years, however, they are living in live-in relationship and their relationship is strongly opposed by respondent No.3, who is father of petitioner No.1. He is constantly interfering in their relationship with assistance of his family members and hurling threats to petitioners. The petitioners are apprehending danger to their life and liberty from private respondent. The petitioners also moved a joint application before S.S.P. Amroha, on 30.8.2023 seeking protection from private respondent but no action has been taken by him. They have also filed a joint affidavit in support of their contention in writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Apex Court in a number of judgments has held that the live-in relationship between two consenting adults (i.e. boy and girl) does not amount to any offence.
3. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel opposed the prayer made in writ petition, however, he did not dispute the submissions as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to 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.
5. 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, as well as of 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."
6. 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 Senior Superintendents of Police, Amroha i.e., respondent no.2, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
7. A liberty is granted to the private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 5.10.2023
Kuldeep
