Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. FAREEN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

Adult consenting spouses have the right to live together without interference, and the court may issue a mandamus directing authorities to protect them.

Summary

The petitioners, a married adult couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide them protection against threats from family members. They submitted proof of age, marriage registration, and affidavits affirming their free‑will union. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that adults have the absolute right to choose their partner and residence, and no parent or authority can impose restrictions. It ordered that any disturbance be reported to the Senior Superintendent of Police, who must ensure immediate protection, and warned that fabricated documents could lead to a recall application. The Court clarified that it did not pass upon the validity of the marriage itself. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with no costs awarded.

Issues considered

  • Whether the State may lawfully interfere in the cohabitation of adult consenting spouses.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing authorities to refrain from interference and to provide protection.
  • Whether notice to the private respondent is required in such proceedings.
  • Whether the court needs to adjudicate the validity of the marriage to grant protection.

Subjects

  • marriage
  • adult consent
  • right to cohabit
  • writ of mandamus
  • protective order
  • family interference
  • personal liberty

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 20707 of 2026

Smt. Fareen And Another
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Hina Shafiq, Rizwan Ahmad(Qureshi)
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 High School marksheet whereas the
petitioner no.2 has brought on record his Adhar Card 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. 20707 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 Senior Superintendent of Police,
                                    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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.