KANCHAN SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                      WRIT - C No. - 38741 of 2026

Kanchan Singh And Another
                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                            .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                             :    Sanju Soni
Counsel for Respondent(s)                             :    C.S.C.

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

1. Shri R. S. Tomar, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of
opposite party No. 4, which is taken on record.
2. 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 have
solemnized marriage out of their own free will and consent without any
coercion, since they are major 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. In support of their age, both the petitioners have
brought on record their High School marksheets and from perusal of the
same, it is evident that both the petitioners are major. The averments made in
the petition are supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners. It is
further stated that the petitioners have already applied for registration of
their marriage.

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.
                                                           WRIC No. 38741 of 2026
                                  2


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, 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
along with 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.
                                                                                            WRIC No. 38741 of 2026
                                                                      3


                                    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.




                                                                                   (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)

                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem.




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad