High Court · 2025

Petitioner :- Komal Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava,Anoop Kumar Srivastava,Km. Saumya Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

1. Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Shailesh Tripathi,, advocate along with Sri Aman Thakur, advocate, on behalf of the respondent No. 4, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Ms. Saumya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and Sri Aman Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

3. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to the respondent No. 5 & 6 are hereby dispensed with.

4. This case has been taken up on the mention being made by Ms. Saumya Tiwari on behalf of the petitioners yesterday.

5. Both the petitioners are present in person.

6. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed the following main relief(s): "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2-3 to provide immediate police protection to the petitioners for safeguarding their lives and liberty from private respondents. No. 4-6. (ii) Issue a direction or order directing all respondents not to harass the petitioners and family members of petitioner No.2."

7. Learned A.G.A. has informed that one FIR bearing No.0142 of 2025, under Section 87 BNS has been lodged by the respondent No. 4 against the petitioner No. 2 on 05.08.2025, however, Ms. Saumya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that she and her clients are not aware about any such FIR. She has stated that she will challenge the aforesaid FIR by filing a subsequent writ petition.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 have got married on 05.08.2025. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 1 which is a marriage certificate issued by Vidant Sanatan Hindu Seva Mandir, 32-Vidhan Khand-3, Laulai, Lucknow. Annexure No. 2 contains some marriage photographs of petitioner No. 1 and 2. It is stated that since the family members of the petitioner No. 1 namely Ms. Komal Gupta were not aggreeable for that marriage, therefore, she left her house and after getting married with the petitioner No. 2, she started living with him. Petitioner No. 1 - Ms. Komal Gupta has stated that she has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against her husband (petitioner No. 2) and he is looking after her properly. She further stated that she is willing to live with him only and she is not willing to live with her family members. She further stated that she has serious grievance against her brother namely Ajay Gupta @ Shalu Gupta (respondent No. 4) who is her elder brother and he has beaten her couple of times. Since her father is no more, therefore, her elder brother is virtually controlling the family.

9. Sri Aman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has stated that under the influence of petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 has got married with the petitioner No. 2 and that marriage is not acceptable to the respondent No. 4 in the interest of petitioner No. 1 itself.

10. Learned A.G.A. has stated that since the FIR, lodged against the petitioner No. 1, has not been assailed in this writ petition, therefore, he has noting to say.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the family members of the petitioner No.1 are threatening both the petitioners for dire consequences, therefore, the petitioners may be given appropriate protection.

12. Be that as it may, since both the petitioners are present in Court and have stated that they have married and they are living together happily as husband and wife and being major persons, they can take their decision on their own and no one can cause any obstruction or restriction on their peaceful marital life, therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, the request of the petitioners may be accepted.

13. In Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "...13. We have considered the above facts and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State Government.

14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives.

15. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note thatinstead of taking action against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts (details of which have been set out above), the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives.

16. Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public concern, such as the present one.

17. .... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter- caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

14. Since the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No. 2, therefore, both the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 12.08.2025 to co-operate in the investigation where the Investigating Officer may record their statements but the Investigating Officer shall not compel them to sit in the police station for unnecessarily long period inasmuch as their statement shall be recorded with promptness so that they can leave the police station after recording their statements.

15. It is expected from the Station House Officer/ Investigating Officer of the concerned police station to conduct and conclude the investigation strictly in accordance with law and submit police report in the matter. The present petitioners shall not be harassed by the police or any other individual.

16. It is provided that if the present petitioners find that the family members of the petitioner No. 1 create any hindrance or obstruction in their peaceful marital life, they may approach the Superintendent of Police, Unnao by way of filing an appropriate application and if such application is filed by the petitioners, it is expected from the Superintendent of Police, Unnao that he shall pass an appropriate order providing appropriate protection to both the petitioners.

17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Komal Gupta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Srivastava,Anoop Kumar Srivastava,Km. Saumya Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

1. Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Shailesh Tripathi,, advocate along with Sri Aman Thakur, advocate, on behalf of the respondent No. 4, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Ms. Saumya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents and Sri Aman Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

3. In view of the proposed order being passed, notices to the respondent No. 5 & 6 are hereby dispensed with.

4. This case has been taken up on the mention being made by Ms. Saumya Tiwari on behalf of the petitioners yesterday.

5. Both the petitioners are present in person.

6. By means of this petition, the petitioners have prayed the following main relief(s): "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no. 2-3 to provide immediate police protection to the petitioners for safeguarding their lives and liberty from private respondents. No. 4-6. (ii) Issue a direction or order directing all respondents not to harass the petitioners and family members of petitioner No.2."

7. Learned A.G.A. has informed that one FIR bearing No.0142 of 2025, under Section 87 BNS has been lodged by the respondent No. 4 against the petitioner No. 2 on 05.08.2025, however, Ms. Saumya Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that she and her clients are not aware about any such FIR. She has stated that she will challenge the aforesaid FIR by filing a subsequent writ petition.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioner No. 1 and 2 have got married on 05.08.2025. Attention has been drawn towards Annexure No. 1 which is a marriage certificate issued by Vidant Sanatan Hindu Seva Mandir, 32-Vidhan Khand-3, Laulai, Lucknow. Annexure No. 2 contains some marriage photographs of petitioner No. 1 and 2. It is stated that since the family members of the petitioner No. 1 namely Ms. Komal Gupta were not aggreeable for that marriage, therefore, she left her house and after getting married with the petitioner No. 2, she started living with him. Petitioner No. 1 - Ms. Komal Gupta has stated that she has no grievance of any kind whatsoever against her husband (petitioner No. 2) and he is looking after her properly. She further stated that she is willing to live with him only and she is not willing to live with her family members. She further stated that she has serious grievance against her brother namely Ajay Gupta @ Shalu Gupta (respondent No. 4) who is her elder brother and he has beaten her couple of times. Since her father is no more, therefore, her elder brother is virtually controlling the family.

9. Sri Aman Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has stated that under the influence of petitioner No. 2, the petitioner No. 1 has got married with the petitioner No. 2 and that marriage is not acceptable to the respondent No. 4 in the interest of petitioner No. 1 itself.

10. Learned A.G.A. has stated that since the FIR, lodged against the petitioner No. 1, has not been assailed in this writ petition, therefore, he has noting to say.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the family members of the petitioner No.1 are threatening both the petitioners for dire consequences, therefore, the petitioners may be given appropriate protection.

12. Be that as it may, since both the petitioners are present in Court and have stated that they have married and they are living together happily as husband and wife and being major persons, they can take their decision on their own and no one can cause any obstruction or restriction on their peaceful marital life, therefore, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, the request of the petitioners may be accepted.

13. In Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- "...13. We have considered the above facts and have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State Government.

14. This case reveals a shocking state of affairs. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a major and was at all relevant times a major. Hence she is free to marry anyone she likes or live with anyone she likes. There is no bar to an inter-caste marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act or any other law. Hence, we cannot see what offence was committed by the petitioner, her husband or her husband's relatives.

15. We are of the opinion that no offence was committed by any of the accused and the whole criminal case in question is an abuse of the process of the court as well as of the administrative machinery at the instance of the petitioner's brothers who were only furious because the petitioner married outside her caste. We are distressed to note thatinstead of taking action against the petitioner's brothers for their unlawful and high-handed acts (details of which have been set out above), the police has instead proceeded against the petitioner's husband and his relatives.

16. Since several such instances are coming to our knowledge of harassment, threats and violence against young men and women who marry outside their caste, we feel it necessary to make some general comments on the matter. The nation is passing through a crucial transitional period in our history, and this Court cannot remain silent in matters of great public concern, such as the present one.

17. .... This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter- caste or inter-religious marriage. We, therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities throughout the country will see to it that if any boy or girl who is a major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is not harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence, and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such persons as provided by law."

14. Since the FIR has been lodged against the petitioner No. 2, therefore, both the petitioners are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer concerned on 12.08.2025 to co-operate in the investigation where the Investigating Officer may record their statements but the Investigating Officer shall not compel them to sit in the police station for unnecessarily long period inasmuch as their statement shall be recorded with promptness so that they can leave the police station after recording their statements.

15. It is expected from the Station House Officer/ Investigating Officer of the concerned police station to conduct and conclude the investigation strictly in accordance with law and submit police report in the matter. The present petitioners shall not be harassed by the police or any other individual.

16. It is provided that if the present petitioners find that the family members of the petitioner No. 1 create any hindrance or obstruction in their peaceful marital life, they may approach the Superintendent of Police, Unnao by way of filing an appropriate application and if such application is filed by the petitioners, it is expected from the Superintendent of Police, Unnao that he shall pass an appropriate order providing appropriate protection to both the petitioners.

17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 (Manoj K.) (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.) MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench