SMT. SOHITA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 35436 of 2026

Smt. Sohita Devi And Another
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :   Sudhakar Yadav
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 High School Marksheet, whereas the petitioner no.2 has
brought on record his Aadhar 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.
                                                       WRIC No. 35436 of 2026
                               2

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 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, I am of the
view 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 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 and 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.

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.
                                                                                      WRIC No. 35436 of 2026
                                                                3

                                    11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is accordingly
                                    disposed of. No order as to costs.


                                                                             (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    S.Ali




Digitally signed by :-
SHAUKAT ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad