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

Petitioner :- Smt. Anjum And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kuamr Yadav 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. The petitioners claim that they are major. Petitioner nos. 1 and 2 had solemnized their marriage on 9.2.2022 according to Muslim rites and rituals for which a Nikahnama dated 9.2.2022 has been executed, copy of the original Nikahnama has been filed as annexure-2 to the petition. In support of their age, the petitioners have brought on record their Transfer Certificate and Adhar Card; wherein, the date of birth of the petitioner no. 2 is shown as 1.1.1983 and that of petitioner no. 1 as 1.1.1990. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.

They have moved online application to get their marriage registered before the marriage registration officer/Registrar, which is annexed as annexure- 3 to the writ petition. Respondent no. 4 was averse to the marriage of the petitioners and intended to give her hand to some other person, however, till date no F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner no. 2. They have moved application on 20.4.2023 to S.P. Hapur for seeking protection from respondent no. 4 but no action has been taken. 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 their family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notice to the 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 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.