SMT. SHWETA YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 19673 of 2026

Smt. Shweta Yadav And Another
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Dinesh Kumar, Raj Kumar Tripathi,
                                 Rakesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners
today in the Court, is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel
for the State.
3. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking for
issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere
in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife and
further direction has also been sought for the authorities concerned to
provide protection to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that earlier the
petitioner no.1 had gone with the petitioner no.2 out of her own free will
and consent however, F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner no.2 and
one another being Case Crime No. 695 of 2024 under Section 137(2) of
BNS. Learned counsel further argued that later on, the victim/petitioner
no.1 was recovered and her statement under Section 183 of B.N.S.S. was
recorded in which, she has stated that her parents had settled her marriage
with another person and therefore, she had gone to Pune, where the
petitioner no.2 resides and stayed with him, copy of which statement is at
page no. 82 of the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel further
argued that thereafter the petitioner no.1 again came to the petitioner no.2
and has solemnised marriage without any threat or coercion. Learned
counsel for the petitioners has further contended that the petitioners are
major and to demonstrate that the petitioners are major, the petitioners
have brought on record their High School certificate. They have
                                                       WRIC No. 19673 of 2026
                               2

solemnised marriage out of their own free will and consent without any
coercion and are living together as married couple. Further, it is stated
that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed and
there is serious danger to their lives as they are being threatened and
harassed. It is further stated that the petitioners have already applied for
registration of their marriage. The averments made in the petition are
supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners.
5. 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 her family. In case, this
Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered.
6. 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.
7. 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."
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
of the opinion that the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no
person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. In case any
                                                                                         WRIC No. 19673 of 2026
                                                                    3

                                    disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the
                                    petitioners shall approach the concerned Superintendent of Police, i.e.
                                    respondent no.2 alongwith a certified copy of this order who shall provide
                                    immediate protection to the petitioners.
                                    9. 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/her
                                    to file a recall application for recall of this order.
                                    10. As registration of marriage is compulsory vide decision of the
                                    Supreme Court reported in (2006) 2 SCC 578 and (2008) 1 SCC 180
                                    Seema (Smt.) Vs. Ashwani Kumar, the petitioners undertake to get their
                                    marriage registered within a period of two months.
                                    11. 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.
                                    12. 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.
                                    13. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is accordingly
                                    disposed of. No order as to costs.




                                                                                (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad