# Razia & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 884
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-05
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 27338 of 2023
- **Bench:** Surendra Singh-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/razia-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50785
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 19 & 21 - Live-in-Relationship -
Protection - Petitioners, major and of
different
religions,
voluntarily
living
together - Threat of honour killing from
family members - Right to life and
personal liberty under Articles 19 & 21 of
Constitution includes right to choose
partner - Held, no one including parents
has right to interfere - In case of threat,
police to provide immediate protection -
Liberty granted to private respondent to
seek legal remedy if documents found
forged.

Petition disposed of with liberty to seek
police protection in case of threat.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

65. Analyzing / reading the provisions
as provided under the Uttar Pradesh
Panchayat Raj (Election of Members,
Pradhans and Up-Pradhans) Rules, 1994,
there was ample opportunity, at every stage
from the time of sealing of ballot box to the
count of ballot papers, procedure of
counting, verification of accounts as
submitted by Matdan Adhyaksh as well as
election return by the Nirvachan Adhikari,
to raise objection taking specific plea
regarding number of votes being cast in
favour of the election petitioner and other
contesting candidates, but that has not been
done in the present case.

66. The election rules also provide
that Prapatra 45 & 46 are prepared after
counting is taken place following the
proper procedure as prescribed under law,
and in case there was any shortcoming or
irregularity at the time of counting that
would have been very well known from the
aforesaid Prapatra, which could have been
one of the grounds, i.e., with respect to
total number of votes cast, which had to be
taken into account while directing for
recounting, that too, in such a case, where
allegations of overwriting and cutting are
made in the Prapatra. The aforesaid
averment in the petition is not supported by
any evidence and, therefore, has no legs to
stand. The tribunal has not taken into
consideration the fact that as per well
settled position of law in the case of
Chandrika Prasad Yadav v. State of
Bihar
and
others31,
an
order
of
recounting of votes can be passed when
following conditions are fulfilled:

"(i) a prima facie case;

(ii) pleading of material facts
stating irregularities in counting of votes;

(iii) a roving and fishing inquiry
shall not be made while directing recounting of votes; and

(iv) an objection to the said effect
has been taken recourse to."

67. From the aforesaid discussion, this
Court is of the opinion that the order directing
for recounting, does sustain in the eyes of
law. Accordingly, the impugned order dated
03.07.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 is set
aside. A direction is issued upon respondent
no. 2 to take all endeavours to decide the
election petition, finally, in accordance with
the procedure prescribed and relevant Act as
well as Rules, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of four months from the date
of production of certified copy of this order,
without
granting
any
unnecessary
adjournment to either of the parties and
without being influenced by any of the
observations made in this order.

68. The writ petition stands allowed
accordingly.

69. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 884
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURENDRA SINGH-I, J.

Writ-C No. 27338 of 2023

Razia & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sharad Chand Rai, Sri Anvir Singh
9 All. Razia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Articles 19 & 21 - Live-in-Relationship -
Protection - Petitioners, major and of
different
religions,
voluntarily
living
together - Threat of honour killing from
family members - Right to life and
personal liberty under Articles 19 & 21 of
Constitution includes right to choose
partner - Held, no one including parents
has right to interfere - In case of threat,
police to provide immediate protection -
Liberty granted to private respondent to
seek legal remedy if documents found
forged.

Petition disposed of with liberty to seek
police protection in case of threat.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475

2. Gian Devi Vs Superintendent, Nari Niketan,
(1976) 3 SCC 234

3. Shafin Jahan Vs Asokan K.M., (2018) 16 SCC
368

4. Soni Gerry Vs Gerry Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC
197

5. D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10
SCC 469

6. Dhanu Lal Vs Ganesh Ram, (2015) 12 SCC
301

7. Nandakumar Vs St. of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC
602

8. Kiran Rawat Vs St. of U.P., 2023 LawSuit (All)
953 - Distinguished.

Held:
A couple who are majors and in a consensual
live-in-relationship cannot be denied protection.
Interference by family members on account of
social, religious, or personal opposition to such
relationship is impermissible. Right to choose a
partner is part of fundamental rights under
Article 21.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I, J.)

1. Heard Shri Sharad Chand Rai,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri
Upendra Nath, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel assisted by Shri Yogesh
Kumar,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State and
perused the material available on record.

2. The instant writ petition has been
filed seeking a direction in the nature of
mandamus to the private respondent not to
interfere in the peaceful living of the
petitioners. Further the direction has been
sought to respondent no. 2 and 3 to provide
protection to the petitioners.

3. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that both the
petitioners are major. The date of birth of
petitioner no. 1 as mentioned in her Pan
Card & Aadhar Card, is 13.04.2001 and the
date of birth of petitioner no. 2 as
mentioned in his Aadhar Card and Pan
Card is 01.01.1997. It is averred that both
the
petitioners
are
residing
together
peacefully out of their own free will in a
live-in-relationship. It is further submitted
that respondent no. 4, mother of the first
petitioner and her family members are
averse to the parties' live in relationship.
She along with other family members, is
harassing and disturbing the peaceful life of
the petitioners. She has threatened the
petitioners with dire consequences. The
petitioners have apprehension of honour
killing from her family members. Petitioner
no. 1 has moved an application dated
04.08.2023 to the Commissioner of Police,
Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar
seeking their protection but to no avail. It is
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that
both the petitioners intend to solemnize
their marriage in near future. It is also
stated that till date no FIR has been lodged
relating to their live-in-relationship and
both the petitioners are living together
happily.

4. Looking to the nature of the order
that this Court proposes to pass, issue of
notice
to
the
private
respondent
is
dispensed with. However, in case the said
respondent feels aggrieved by the order
passed today, it shall be open to her to
make an application in this decided
petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State has opposed the petition
and submitted that both petitioner belong to
different religious groups. Living in live-inrelationship
is
punishable
as
Zina
(Adultery) in Muslim personal law.

6. Reliance has been placed by
petitioners upon judgement of the Apex
Court in Lata Singh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475,
where the Apex Court has held as under:

"17. The caste system is a curse
on the nation and the sooner it is destroyed
the better. In fact, it is dividing the nation
at a time when We have to be united to face
the challenges before the nation unitedly.
Hence, inter-caste marriages are in fact in
the national interest as they will result in
destroying the caste system. However,
disturbing news are coming from several
parts of the country that young men and
women who undergo inter-caste marriage,
are threatened with violence, or violence is
actually committed on them. In our
opinion, such acts of violence or threats or
harassment are wholly illegal and those
who commit them must be severely
punished. This is a free and democratic
country, and once a person becomes a
major he or she can marry whosoever
he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl
do not approve of such inter-caste or interreligious marriage the maximum they can
do is that they can cut-off social relations
with the son or the daughter, but they
cannot give threats or commit or instigate
acts of violence and cannot harass the
person who undergoes such inter-caste or
inter-religious marriage. We, therefore,
direct
that
the
administration/police
authorities throughout the country will see
to it that if any boy or girl who is a major
undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious
marriage with a woman or man who is a
major, the couple is not harassed by
anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of
violence, and anyone who gives such
threats or harasses or commits acts of
violence
either
himself
or
at
his
instigation, is taken to task by instituting
criminal proceedings by the police against
such persons and further stern action is
taken against such persons as provided by
law.

(Emphasis by Court)

18. We
sometimes
hear
of
"honour" killings of such persons who
undergo
inter-caste
or
inter-religious
marriage of their own free will. There is
nothing honourable in such killings, and in
fact they are nothing but barbaric and
shameful acts of murder committed by
brutal, feudal-minded persons who deserve
harsh punishment. Only in this way can we
stamp out such acts of barbarism."

7. In Gian Devi vs. Superintendent,
Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3
SCC 234, the three Judge Bench of the
9 All. Razia & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
887
Apex Court has observed that where an
individual is over eighteen years of age, no
fetters could be placed on her choice on
where to reside or about the person with
whom she could stay:

".....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 jurisno 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....."

8. In Shafin Jahan vs. Asokan K.M.
& others, (2018) 16 SCC 368, the Apex
Court emphasized due importance to the
right of choice of an adult person, which
the Constitution accords to an adult person.
The Court held:

"52. It is obligatory to state here
that expression of choice in accord with
law is acceptance of individual identity.
Curtailment of that expression and the
ultimate action emanating therefrom on the
conceptual structuralism of obeisance to
the societal will destroy the individualistic
entity of a person. The social values and
morals have their space but they are not
above
the
constitutionally
guaranteed
freedom. The said freedom is both a
constitutional
and
a
human
right.
Deprivation of that freedom which is
ingrained in choice on the plea of faith is
impermissible. Faith of a person is intrinsic
to his/her meaningful existence. To have
the freedom of faith is essential to his/her
autonomy; and it strengthens the core
norms of the Constitution. Choosing a faith
is the substratum of individuality and sans
it, the right of choice becomes a shadow. It
has to be remembered that the realisation
of a right is more important than the
conferment of the right. Such actualisation
indeed ostracises any kind of societal
notoriety and keeps at bay the patriarchal
supremacy.
It
is
so
because
the
individualistic faith and expression of
choice
are
fundamental
for
the
fructification of the right. Thus, we would
like to call it indispensable preliminary
condition."

9. A three Judge Bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Soni Gerry vs.
Gerry Douglas, (2018) 2 SCC 197, where
the daughter of appellant and respondent,
who had attained the age of majority,
expressed her desire to reside in Kuwait
with her father, where she was pursuing her
education, held:

"10. It needs no special emphasis
to state that attaining the age of majority in
an individual's life has its own significance.
She/He is entitled to make her/his choice.
The courts cannot, as long as the choice
remains, assume the role of parens patriae.
The daughter is entitled to enjoy her
freedom as the law permits and the court
should not assume the role of a super
guardian being moved by any kind of
sentiment of the mother or the egotism of
the father. We say so without any
reservation."

10. In the Case of D. Velusamy vs. D.
Patchajammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469, the
Apex
Court
while
considering
the
definitions given under Section 2 of the
Domestic
Violence
Act,
dealt
with
definition of "domestic relationship", as a
relationship in the nature of marriage. It
laid down the following requisite criteria
for a relationship in the nature of marriage:
888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(a)The
couple
must
hold
themselves out to society as being akin to
spouses.

(b) They must be of legal age to
marry.

(c) They must be otherwise
qualified to enter into a legal marriage,
including being unmarried.

(d) They must have voluntarily
cohabited and held themselves out to the
world as being akin to spouses for a
significant period of time.

11. In Dhanu Lal vs. Ganesh Ram,
(2015) 12 SCC 301, the Apex Court has
held that couples in live in relationships
will be presumed legally married. It was
also held that the woman in live in
relationship would be eligible to inherit the
property after the death of a partner.

12. In Nandakumar and another vs.
State of Kerala, (2018) 16 SCC 602, the
Apex Court emphasized that live in
relationship is now recognized by the
legislature itself and it has found its place
under the provisions of Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005.

13. From the above discussion and the
rulings of the Supreme Court, it is clear that
a boy or girl, who have attained majority, is
free to marry or live with a person of
his/her choice and no one including his/her
parents or anyone on their behalf can
interfere in their right to freedom of
choosing a partner which emanates from
Right to Life and Personal Liberty
guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the
Constitution of India.

14. Learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State has placed reliance upon
a Division Bench decision of this Court in
Kiran Rawat and another vs. State of
U.P.,
2023
LawSuit(All)
953
and
submitted that the Court has refused to
provide protection to couples residing
together in a live-in-relationship.

15. From perusal of the judgment of
this Court in Kiran Rawat (supra), it is
apparent that the Court has not held that
couple residing in a live-in-relationship are
not entitled to protection of the Court, but it
is due to the special circumstances of that
case before the Court, that the Court has
denied protection to the couple staying in a
live-in-relationship.

16. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the law
laid down by the Apex Court in its
catena of judgements, this Court is of the
opinion that the petitioners are at liberty
to live together and no person, including
their parents or anyone acting on their
behalf, shall be permitted to interfere in
their peaceful live-in-relationship. In
case any disturbance is caused in the
peaceful living of the petitioners, the
petitioners
shall
approach
the
Superintendent of Police concerned,
with a copy of this order, who shall
provide immediate protection to the
petitioners.

17. A liberty is granted to the private
respondent that if false facts are stated or
the documents brought on the record are
fabricated or forged, it will be open to her
to file an application in this petition.

18. With the aforesaid observations,
the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
9 All. U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
889
(2023) 9 ILRA 889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 1006454 of 2011

U.P. Corp. Fed. Ltd. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
P.O., Industrial Tribunal, Lko & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:

Counsel for the Respondents:

Civil Law - U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,
1947 - Section 6F & 6H - U.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1965 - Sections 70, 135 -
Petitioner
challenges
U.P.
Industrial
Tribunal's award dated 23.04.2011, which
set
aside
respondent's
termination,
directed his reinSt.ment from 01.01.1985,
and awarded 50% back wages - Also
challenges
order
dated
09.03.2010
rejecting
its
objection
to
Industrial
Tribunal's jurisdiction over cooperative
society disputes - Respondent/employee
worked continuously from 16.02.1982 to
31.12.1984, completing over 240 days in a
year - His termination was without notice
or compliance with Section 6F of U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act - No contrary
evidence was presented and Tribunal's
order
is
found
proper
-
Workman
approached Labour Court - Petitioners
raised
preliminary
objection
to
its
jurisdiction, wrongly rejected by order
dated 09.03.2010 - As held in Ghaziabad
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Labour Court has
no jurisdiction over disputes involving
societies under Societies Act, 1965 -
Impugned orders set aside. (Para 1, 2, 17,
31, 32)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:
1. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs
Additional Labour Commissioner & ors., 2008 (1)
SCC (LNS) 90

2. Dharappa Vs Bijapur Coop. Milk Producers
Societies Union Ltd., (2007) 9 SCC 109

3.
K.A.
Annamma
Vs
Secretary,
Cochin
Cooperative Hospital Society Ltd., 2018 (2) SCC
729

4. Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs Addl.
Labour Commissioner, 2007 (11) SCC 756 (Para
65)

5. Ramji Lal Tewari Vs U.P. Co-operative Sugar
Federation Ltd. Lko. Special Appeal No. 524 of
2015 (decided on 02.11.2015)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. The award passed by U.P. Industrial
Tribunal, Lucknow dated 23.4.2011 has been
questioned by the petitioner, wherein the
claim of the respondent-employee has been
allowed, and his order of termination has
been set aside and the petitioners have been
directed to reinstate him in service with effect
from 1.1.1985 and he has also been held
entitled to 50 per cent back wages.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the
order dated 9.3.2010 whereby the preliminary
objection raised by the petitioner with regard
to the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to
decide
the
dispute
pertaining
to
the
cooperative society has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief necessary for
adjudication of the present controversy are
that respondent No.3-employee, namely,
Ajay Kumar Mishra was appointed on
adhoc basis for 89 days with effect from
16.2.1982. His employment was extended
from time to time till 31.12.1984 after
which he was not allowed to continue in
service.