SHILPI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 36650 of 2026

Shilpi And Another
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)              :    Praveen Kumar Srivastava
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 petitioner
no.1 had gone with the petitioner no.2 in the year 2024 out of her own
free will and consent but a F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner no.2 in
Case Crime No. 126 of 2024 under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) I.P.C., and
Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, Police Station Gunnaur, District Sambhal in
which the petitioner was enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.08.2024,
copy of which order is at page no. 32 of the paper book. Learned counsel
further argued that thereafter trial was commenced, in which the
petitioner has been acquitted vide Judgement and order dated 02.08.2025,
copy of the Judgement and order dated 02.08.2025 has been produced
before this Court and is taken on record. Learned counsel further argued
as soon as the petitioner no.1 attains majority, she again went with the
petitioner no.2 and has solemnised marriage with the petitioner no.2.
Learned counsel thus argued that the petitioners are major and to
demonstrate that the petitioners are major, the petitioner no.1 has filed her
PAN Card and class 9th and 10th admit card, whereas the petitioner no.2
                                                       WRIC No. 36650 of 2026
                               2


has brought on record his Aadhar Card and PAN Card. Learned counsel
further argued that the petitioners 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 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 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
                                                                                           WRIC No. 36650 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    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. 3, 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 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