Allahabad High Court
SMT. SANGEETA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed on merits
- Bench
- GAUTAM CHOWDHARY
Holding
Adult individuals exercising free will to live together cannot be interfered with, and the court may issue protection and mandate marriage registration within a specified period.
Summary
The petitioners, both adults, filed a writ of mandamus seeking protection from interference by family members in their consensual marriage and requested that authorities prevent any threat to their lives. The court examined the petitioners' age and consent, noting that they had submitted school marksheets and Aadhaar cards as proof of majority. Relying on Supreme Court precedents that affirm the liberty of adults to choose their partners and live together, the court held that no one, including parents, could interfere. It directed the respondents, particularly the Superintendent of Police, to provide immediate protection and ordered the petitioners to register their marriage within two months, after which the protection would lapse if not complied. The court disposed of the writ petition without issuing notice to the private respondent, emphasizing that it had not adjudicated the validity of the marriage itself.
Issues considered
- Whether adult petitioners can be protected from family interference in their consensual marriage under a writ of mandamus.
- Whether the court can direct law enforcement to provide protection without notice to the private respondent.
- Whether the petitioners must register their marriage within a stipulated period as per Supreme Court directives.
Subjects
- adult consent
- marriage registration
- personal liberty
- writ of mandamus
- protective order
- family interference
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37140 of 2026
Smt. Sangeeta And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash Chaube, Snehil
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Dwivedi, C.S.C., Vidya Sagar
Dwivedi
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 and also adhar card, whereas the
petitioner no.2 has brought on record his Adhar Card and also High School
marksheet. 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
WRIC No. 37140 of 2026
2
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, 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…