Allahabad High Court
SMT. KHKASHA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult individuals have the liberty to live together and no person, including the State or family members, may lawfully interfere with their peaceful cohabitation.
Summary
The petitioners, a married couple, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their peaceful cohabitation and to provide police protection, alleging threats from family members. They submitted their marriage registration certificate and school marksheets to establish that both are adults and have married of their own free will. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that adult individuals have the liberty to choose their partner and residence, the Court held that no person, including parents or authorities, may interfere with their living together. The Court directed the respondent police officer to provide immediate protection to the petitioners and clarified that the order does not adjudicate the validity of the marriage. The petition was disposed without costs, with a liberty granted to the private respondent to seek recall if the documents are found to be forged.
Issues considered
- Whether the State or any private respondent can lawfully interfere in the cohabitation of adult individuals who have married voluntarily.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing authorities not to interfere and to provide protection to the petitioners.
- Whether notice to the private respondent is required in such proceedings.
- Whether the court must determine the validity of the marriage before granting protection.
Subjects
- adult consent
- right to cohabit
- marriage registration
- writ of mandamus
- protective order
- family interference
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 24491 of 2026
Smt. Khkasha And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Belal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit, annexing the marriage registration certificate
of the petitioners, 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 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, both the
petitioners have brought on record their 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.
5. It is further stated that the petitioners have already brought on record
the certificate of registration of their marriage.
6. 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.
7. 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
WRIC No. 24491 of 2026
2
appearing for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at
this stage in terms of the Rules of the Court.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
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.
13. 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…