Allahabad High Court
SABANAM AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult individuals have the liberty to live together, and the Court may issue a protective mandamus directing the State not to interfere, subject to timely registration of the marriage.
Summary
The petitioners, Sabanam and her husband, both adults, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State not to interfere with their marital life and to provide police protection against threats from a private respondent and family members. They submitted identity proof and affidavits confirming a voluntary marriage and pending registration. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents that adults may live together without parental interference, ordered that no one may disturb their peaceful cohabitation and directed the Superintendent of Police to provide immediate protection upon presentation of the order. The Court conditioned the protection on the petitioners registering their marriage within two months, after which the protection would lapse if not complied. The petition was disposed without costs, and no notice was issued to the private respondent.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to prevent interference in the marital life of adult individuals.
- Whether the State can be directed to provide police protection to the petitioners against family threats.
- Whether registration of marriage is a condition for continued protective orders.
Subjects
- adult marriage
- right to live together
- writ of mandamus
- protective order
- registration of marriage
- personal liberty
- family interference
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 30270 of 2026
Sabanam And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Saqulain, Pradeep Kumar
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 are major and
to demonstrate that the petitioners are major, the petitioner no.1 has filed her Adhar
Card whereas the petitioner no.2 has brought on record his Adhar Card. They have
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.
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 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
WRIC No. 30270 of 2026
2
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 alongwith 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.
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.
September 30, 2026
Priyanka
(Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRIYANKA KUSHWAHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…