Allahabad High Court
Akanksha And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 17 May, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90057
Court No. - 90
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16577 of 2024
Petitioner :- Akanksha And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Monika Pal
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.
Heard Sri Monika Pal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioners to issue an ad-interim mandamus commanding and directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to protect the life, property and personnel liberty of the petitioners from the respondent No. 4 and further may be pleased to direct the respondent No. 4 to not harass and interfere in the peaceful matrimonial life of the petitioners, during the pendency of the present petition.
In support of their age, petitioner No.1 Akanksha has brought on record her High School Marks Sheet wherein her date of birth is shown as 11.04.2006 and petitioner No.2 Sonu has also brought on record his High School Marks Sheet wherein his date of birth is shown as 23.02.2003. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major and have married according to their own free will and accord.
It is further stated that the marriage of the petitioners has been registered on 29.04.2024, the Marriage Registration Certificate is placed as Annexure No. '4' to the writ petition.
The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of her family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.
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.
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 judgments 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."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is 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 Superintendent of Police, Etawah i.e respondent No. 2, with a copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court, 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 or any false averment has been made or facts have been concealed, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.
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. The protection is only against the use of criminal force or any illegal or unlawful act. However, any individual effected or aggrieved or any public authority may take lawful action for violation of any law civil or criminal.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.5.2024
Shivani
