Allahabad High Court
Shweta Pandey And Another vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 30 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99660
Court No. - 90
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16322 of 2024
Petitioner :- Shweta Pandey And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshay Pratap,Sanjay Pratap,Vikas Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Pyare,Satish Kumar Sahu
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.
3. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife and further direction has also been sought for the authorities concerned to provide protection to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have solemnized marriage out of their own free will and consent without any coercion, since they are adults and are living together as married couple. Further, it is stated that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to their lives as they are being threatened and harassed. In support of their age, both the petitioners have brought on record their respective High School marksheets and from perusal of the same, it is evident that both the petitioners are major. The averments made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners.
5. It is further stated that the petitioners have already brought on record the certificate of registration of their marriage.
6. 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.
7. The respondent No. 5-Dayanand Pandey, who happens to be father of the petitioner No. 1 is present before the Court, who has made a request to give him permission to meet with his daughter, which prayer has been refused by this Court in view of paras-14 & 15 of the recent judgment of Larger Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Devu G Nair Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1891 of 2023, decided on 11.03.2024), which are being reproduced as under:-
"14. Directions for counseling or parental care have a deterrent effect on members of the LGBTQ+ community. Courts must bear in mind that the concept of 'family' is not limited to natal family but also encompasses a person's chosen family. This is true for all persons. However, it has gained heightened significance for LGBTQ+ persons on account of the violence and lack of safety that they may experience at the hands of their natal family. When faced with humiliation, indignity, and even violence, people look to their partner and friends who become their chosen family. These chosen families often outlast natal families as a source of immeasurable support, love, mutual aid, and social respect.
15.The importance of a chosen family is sometimes lost to the traditional assumption that the natal family is respectful of a person's choices and freedoms. Courts must not wittingly or unwittingly become allies in this misunderstanding, more so in cases involving habeas corpus petition, petitions for protection of the person, or in missing persons' complaints. Since a direction for counselling has been given by the High Court, which we are inclined to set aside, it is imperative that clear guidelines be formulated for the courts dealing with habeas corpus petitions and in petitions seeking protection from family or police interference."
8. 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.
9. 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."
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion 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 concerned Senior Superintendent of Police, i.e., respondent no. 2 along with a certified copy of this order who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
11. 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/her to file a recall application for recall of this order.
12. 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.
13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
14. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 30.5.2024
Mustaqeem.
