PRIYANKA DEVI URF PRIYANKA KOHLI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   WRIT - C No. - 36630 of 2026


Priyanka Devi Urf Priyanka Kohli And
Another                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                              Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Satendra Kumar Sharma
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 date of
birth certificate. They have solemnised marriage out of their
own free will and consent without any coercion and are living
together as married couple, copy of the marriage certificate of
the petitioners has been annexed as Annexure-SA1 to the
supplementary affidavit, which has been filed today in the
Court and is taken on record. 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
shall apply 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
                                                   WRIC No. 36630 of 2026
                          2


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 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 concerned
Senior 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
                                                                                         WRIC No. 36630 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                        undertake to get their marriage registered within a period of
                                        three 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.
                                        11. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is
                                        accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.



                                                                           (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                        September 14, 2026
                                        S.Ali




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