Mamta Devi & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 6 Others

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:- i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful marriage life of the petitioners in any manner. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to harass and torture the petitioners by any mode or manner. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for State respondents, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have solemnized their marriage out of their free will and choice as well as driven by love affairs on 16.05.2023 and filed a color photograph of their marriage ceremony performed at Padila Mahadev Mandir, Phaphamau, District- Prayagraj. They have filed a marriage agreement sworn before Notary Public on 16.05.2023. They have also applied on-line for registration of their marriage. The date of birth of petitioner No. 1 Smt. Mamta Devi is recorded as 01.05.1998 and that of that of petitioner No.2 Vinod Kumar is 01.01.1990, in their respective Aadhar Cards. Learned counsel for the petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they started living together as wife and husband, but their marriage is strongly opposed by in-laws of petitioner No. 1 as she is widow and her first husband Mahesh Saini died on

11.11.2022. Petitioner No. 1 has moved an application before S.S.P., Mathura on 16.05.2023 in which she has sought protection for herself from her parents and their associates. Respondent No. 4 is brother of petitioner No. 1, respondent No. 5 is cousin of petitioner No. 1 and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are her in-laws. Petitioner No. 1 was legally eligible to perform marriage with a person of her choice after death of her husband, there is no legal impediment in their relationship at present. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that he has filed a supplementary affidavit annexing therewith death certificate of previous husband of petitioner No.1 namely Mahesh Saini, who died on 11.11.2022. Hence, there is no legal impediment in marriage of the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries. 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 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. " 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, Mathura i.e., respondent no.2, with a certified 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 to him to file a recall application for recall of this order.