Allahabad High Court
Kalpana Bhatti And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 10 October, 2023
Bench: Surendra Singh-I
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195361
Court No. - 72
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24365 of 2023
Petitioner :- Kalpana Bhatti And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Tiwari,Shivank Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.
1. Heard Praveen Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Hasan Abbas, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents.
Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondents not to interfere in their life and also for protection of their lives and liberty.
2. Averment has been made by the petitioners that the first petitioner, Kalpana Bhatti, is a major with the date of birth recorded in her Certificate-cum-Marksheet being 22.10.1997. The second petitioner, Poul Masih, is also a major. His date of birth recorded in his Certificate-cum-Marksheet is 1.1.1999. It is averred that both the petitioners have live in relationship driven by love affairs and the Hon'ble Apex Court has also recognized live-in relationship, if that is of long duration and living in live-in relationship is not an offence and same requires protection of law, in view of the larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that the petitioners are sui juris and they are living together for more than one year. It is further submitted that father of the first petitioner, respondent no. 4, George Lawrance, is averse to the live in relationship of the petitioners. He is harassing the petitioners in connivance with the local police. It is stated that petitioner no. 1 has given an application to the Superintendent of Police, Rampur, seeking protection of their life but no protection has been granted. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and this Court in Payal Sharma @ Kamla sharma @ Payal Katara Vs. Superindent, Nari Niketan Kalindri Vihar, Agra & Ors reported in AIR 2001 Allahabad 254.
3. Respondent No. 4, the father of the petitioner No.1 is constantly harassing and threatening them. 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.
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 Hon'ble 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 together 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 Hon'ble 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. In the present case, both the petitioners have claimed to be major and are living in live in relationship out of their own freewill. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, so that petitioners are not threatened or tortured by any person, even if they happen to be the parents of petitioners.
7. Copy of the order be sent to the concerned S.H.O. of the Police Station for information.
8. It is made clear that this order is being passed upon the averment made by the petitioners that no F.I.R. has been lodged in respect to kidnapping or abduction of the girl. If, any such F.I.R. has already been lodged against the petitioner(s), this order shall automatically come to an end.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 10.10.2023
Akbar
