SMT. KALMA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                       WRIT - C No. - 34050 of 2026

Smt. Kalma And Another
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                          :    Mazhar Ullah
Counsel for Respondent(s)                          :    C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Ms. Kamar Jahan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Mazhar Ullah,
learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State.

2. At the very outset, learned Standing counsel submits that, in compliance
with the instructions received, no FIR has been lodged against the
petitioner.

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 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.
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
                                                           WRIC No. 34050 of 2026
                                  2

parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage in terms of
the Rules of the Court.
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 Superintendent of Police, i.e. respondent no.2
alongwith 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. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
                                                                                            WRIC No. 34050 of 2026
                                                                    3

                                    13. 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