SNEHA SINGH YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   WRIT - C No. - 20123 of 2026

Sneha Singh Yadav And Another
                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Gaurav   Sharma,           Vijay
                                  Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Standing Counsel for the State.

2. 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.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the
petitioners have solemnized marriage out of their own free will
and consent without any coercion, since they are major 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. In support of their age, both the
petitioners have brought on record their High School
marksheets and from perusal of the same, it is evident that both
the petitioners are major. The averments made in the petition
are supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners. It is
further stated that the petitioners have already applied 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 her family. In case, this Court does not grant them
protection, their lives may be endangered.

5. In view of the order proposed to be passed, there is no need
                                                   WRIC No. 20123 of 2026
                          2


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.

6. 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."

7. 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 disturbance is caused in the
peaceful living of the petitioners, the petitioners shall approach
the concerned Superintendent of Police, i.e., respondent no. 2
along with a certified copy of this order who shall provide
immediate protection to the petitioners.

8. 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.

9. 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.
                                                                                         WRIC No. 20123 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                        10. 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.

                                        11. 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.

                                        12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is
                                        accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

                                                                           (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                        September 8, 2026
                                        Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad