Smt Darshna Kumari & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Petitioner :- Smt Darshna Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Mohan, Juhi Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have attained the age of majority and consent on the date of their marriage. Date of birth of petitioner no. 2 is mentioned as 10.9.2001 in his Adhar Card where as date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is mentioned as 21.5.2001 in her Adhar Card, copies whereof are filed along with petition. Petitioner no. 2 is doing work in a private company and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and is able to fulfill his matrimonial obligations. They solemnized their marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals at Arya Samaj temple, George Town, Prayagraj, on 27.3.2023, thereafter they applied for online registration of their marriage, copy thereof has been filed along with petition, however, respondent nos.

2 to 4 are interfering in the peaceful married life of petitioner in illegal manner despite the fact that petitioners have attained the age of majority and they are sui juris. 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 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, 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 Superintendent of Police concerned, with a copy of this order, 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, it will be open for the respondent to file a recall application for recall of this order.