Allahabad High Court
Smt Ifra Qureshi And Another vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 30 May, 2024
Author: Gautam Chowdhary
Bench: Gautam Chowdhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99470
Court No. - 90
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16336 of 2024
Petitioner :- Smt Ifra Qureshi And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.B. Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- Ayush Kaushik,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri J. B. Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, the learned Standing Counsel for the State as well as Shri Ayush Kaushik, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4.
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 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 also averred in the writ petition that after solemnizing marriage on 25.04.2022 they are living as wife and husband but the family members of petitioner No. 1 are not happy with their marriage and they are continuously threatening the petitioners and pressurizing the petitioner No. 1 for taking divorce from petitioner No. 2. It has also been submitted on 21.05.2024 the respondent No. 4, who happens to be father of petitioner No. 1 along with his other family members, find out the petitioners and committed marpeet with them and in that regard petitioner No. 1 lodged an NCR No. 0023 of 2024 dated 22.05.2024 under Section 323 IPC at Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj. It has also been stated on behalf of petitioners that when the petitioners reached their home at Meerut, then again respondent No. 4 along with his other family members reached at their residence in the night of 23.05.2024 and committed marpeet with them and in that regard the petitioner No. 2 has also filed a complaint bearing Case No. 10792 of 2024, under Sections 147, 452, 323, 504, 506, 342 I.P.C. Police Station Kotwali, District Meerut before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 4, Meerut, wherein after recording statement of petitioner No. 1 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. has fixed the next date 28.06.2024. Thus, 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. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has opposed the writ petition by raising the issue of validity of marriage of the petitioners.
8. 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."
9. On the objection raised on behalf of respondent No. 4, who happens to be father of the petitioner No. 1, this Court had an occasion to go through 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), wherein in para-16 certain guidelines have been formulated for the courts in dealing with habeas corpus petitions or petitions for police protection. Clause (j) of the said guidelines is being reproduced as under:
"The Court must acknowledge that some intimate partners may face social stigma and a neutral stand of the law would be detrimental to the fundamental freedoms of the appellant. Therefore, a court while dealing with a petition for police protection by intimate partners on the grounds that they are a same sex, transgender, inter-faith or inter-caste couple must grant an ad-interim measure, such as immediately granting police protection to the petitioners, before establishing the threshold requirement of being at grave risk of violence and abuse. The protection granted to intimate partners must be with a view to maintain their privacy and dignity;"
10. Thus, in view of above quoted guideline of Hon'ble Apex Court in Devu G Nair (supra), this Court is of the view that when both the petitioners are major, they have solemnized marriage on their or volition and also got registered their marriage before the concerned Registrar, and in view of the fact that respondent No.4 had twice committed marpeet with the petitioners, therefore, petitioners require protection by this Court.
11. Having regard to the above 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 Superintendent of Police, i.e., respondent no. 2 along with a certified copy of this order who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
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. If the respondent No. 4 is aggrieved from the said marriage he may approach before the appropriate forum to challenge the validity of said 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.
