Smt. Antima Yadav And Another v. Counsel for

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. 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.

2. The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent and his other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

3. In support of their age, the petitioner no. 1 has brought on record her marksheet of class Vth and class VIII, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 15.08.2007 and petitioner no. 2 has brought on record his certificate-cum-marksheet of High School Examination, 2016 wherein his date of birth is shown as 24.3.2000. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have performed their marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, Prayagraj on 11.09.2025. They have also brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage.

4. 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 his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries.

6. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that earlier 2 WRIC No. 33072 of 2025 an FIR under Section 363 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner no.2 on

14.12.2020 wherein it was alleged that the minor daughter of the informant was missing since the night of 1.12.2020 who was aged about 15 year only. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim/ petitioner no.1 stated before the I.O. that their marriage was performed in the year 2021, however, subsequently in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate she states that her marriage with petitioner no.2 was performed on 3.3.2021 in Ghaziabad as Court marriage. It is further submitted that in the occification test her radiological age was found 19 years. It is further submitted that there is a differences and twisted statements made by the victim herself regarding her date of marriage.

7. It appears from perusal of the record that after lodging the FIR against petitioner no.2 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, anticipatory bail was granted to him by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11779 of 2022 vide order dated 17.1.202024 and in the said case after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused/ petitioner no.2 and coercive actions have been taken place, cognizance on the said charge sheet was taken by the Special Judge, POCSO Act on 22.10.2025. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that for quashing of the entire proceedings along with the charge sheet in the said matter petitioner no.2 has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2233 of 2025 before this Court, which is pending.

8. 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.

9. The Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 3 WRIC No. 33072 of 2025 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, 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh i.e. the second respondent, 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 to file a recall application for recall of this order.

12. The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.

13. 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.

14. However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the police authorities and the law will take its own course.

15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) FAHAD NIYAZ FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. 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.

2. The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent and his other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.

3. In support of their age, the petitioner no. 1 has brought on record her marksheet of class Vth and class VIII, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 15.08.2007 and petitioner no. 2 has brought on record his certificate-cum-marksheet of High School Examination, 2016 wherein his date of birth is shown as 24.3.2000. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have performed their marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, Prayagraj on 11.09.2025. They have also brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage.

4. 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 his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries.

6. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that earlier 2 WRIC No. 33072 of 2025 an FIR under Section 363 I.P.C. was lodged against the petitioner no.2 on

14.12.2020 wherein it was alleged that the minor daughter of the informant was missing since the night of 1.12.2020 who was aged about 15 year only. It is further submitted that in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the victim/ petitioner no.1 stated before the I.O. that their marriage was performed in the year 2021, however, subsequently in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded by the Magistrate she states that her marriage with petitioner no.2 was performed on 3.3.2021 in Ghaziabad as Court marriage. It is further submitted that in the occification test her radiological age was found 19 years. It is further submitted that there is a differences and twisted statements made by the victim herself regarding her date of marriage.

7. It appears from perusal of the record that after lodging the FIR against petitioner no.2 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and 3/4 (2) POCSO Act, anticipatory bail was granted to him by this Court in Cr. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 11779 of 2022 vide order dated 17.1.202024 and in the said case after investigation charge sheet has been submitted against the accused/ petitioner no.2 and coercive actions have been taken place, cognizance on the said charge sheet was taken by the Special Judge, POCSO Act on 22.10.2025. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that for quashing of the entire proceedings along with the charge sheet in the said matter petitioner no.2 has filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2233 of 2025 before this Court, which is pending.

8. 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.

9. The Hon'ble 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 Hon'ble 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 3 WRIC No. 33072 of 2025 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, 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 Senior Superintendent of Police, Azamgarh i.e. the second respondent, 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 to file a recall application for recall of this order.

12. The petitioners undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of two months. If the petitioners could not get their marriage registered within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.

13. 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.

14. However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the police authorities and the law will take its own course.

15. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. October 9, 2025 Fhd (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) FAHAD NIYAZ FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad