Allahabad High Court
PARUL SINGH AND ANOHTERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult individuals who have freely married cannot be interfered with by parents or others, and the Court may order protection but does not adjudicate the validity of the marriage.
Summary
The petitioners, an adult married couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful married life and to provide police protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of age, marriage registration, and affidavits asserting their free will and consent. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that adults may choose their partners without parental interference, held that no one could lawfully disturb their cohabitation. It directed the Police Commissioner to provide immediate protection upon presentation of the order and allowed the private respondent to seek recall if documents were forged. No notice to the private respondent was deemed necessary, and the petition was disposed with no costs awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain interference in the marital life of adult individuals who have married of their own free will.
- Whether the Court can direct the police to provide protection to the petitioners without issuing notice to the private respondent.
Subjects
- marriage
- adult consent
- right to live together
- protection order
- mandamus
- family interference
- personal liberty
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 20176 of 2026
Parul Singh And Anohter
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivam Shukla, Sushil Kumar Shukla
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 adults 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, petitioner
no.1 has brought on record her Adhar Card, whereas the petitioner no.2
has brought on record his High School marksheet 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.
4. It is further stated that the petitioners have already brought on record
the certificate of registration of their marriage.
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.
WRIC No. 20176 of 2026
2
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
disturbance is caused in the peaceful living of the petitioners, the
petitioners shall approach the concerned Police Commissioner, i.e.,
respondent no. 2 along with 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. 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.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is accordingly
disposed of.
12. 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
Checking your session…