# Smt. Priya Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 232 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020-09-07 - **Case number:** Writ- C No. 13366 of 2020 - **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-priya-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45170 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Constitution of India - Article 21 - Marital right to live together - 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 - Held, the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. (Para 9 and 10) Writ Petition partly allowed (E-1) Cases relied on :- ## Text 232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES be positively held within a period of six weeks from today. It is further provided that the Manager will ensure that all the Protocols as prescribed under the guidelines and norms issued by the State Government and Central Government with regard to Covid-19 are followed. 27. With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is disposed off. ---------- (2020)10ILR A232 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. Writ- C No. 13366 of 2020 Smt. Priya Verma & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sabhajeet, Nishad Ramjanki Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Constitution of India - Article 21 - Marital right to live together - 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 - Held, the petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living. (Para 9 and 10) Writ Petition partly allowed (E-1) Cases relied on :- 1. Gian Devi Vs The Suptd., Nari Niketan, Delhi & ors. (1976) 3 SCC 234 2. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; (2006) 5 SCC 475 3. Bhagwan Dass Vs. St. (NCT of Delhi); (2011) 6 SCC 396 4. Deepika & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2013 (9) ADJ 534 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to amend the prayer clause. He may do so during the course of the day. 2. Petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their life and liberty. 3. The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent and his other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the life of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed. 4. In support of their age, petitioners brought on record their high school certificates which show that they are major. They have also brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage. 5. 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 his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their life may be endangered. 10 All. Smt. Priya Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 233 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State has submitted that there is already an F.I.R. pending and petitioner No.2 has been alleged to have committed offence under POSCO Act and, therefore, he may not be granted protection. 7. As against this, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the F.I.R. was lodged when the petitioners have first eloped but now they have entered into a wedlock and petitioner No.1 is now major as per her high school certificate and, therefore, the F.I.R. not being recent but of 2018, cannot come in their way of getting married and protection by this Court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 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. 9. 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." 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I 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 police authority with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners. 11. A liberty is granted to private respondent that if the documents brought on the record are fabricated or forged, it will be open to him to file a recall application for recall of this order. 12. 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 and genuineness of their marriage certificate, if any. 13. It is also made clear that this is a petition seeking protection against harassment. It is not to be construed as if this Court has entered into merits of the sessions case pending at Kanpur Nagar having arisen out of Case Crime No.102 of 2018. This petition is not to be construed as if this Court has condoned the act of petitioner No.2 who is facing criminal 234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES proceedings as this Court has not gone into any other aspect. This petition shall also not be construed as can be stated to be statement of prosecutrix of the said matter as situation which arises now is based on unaffirmed documents and on the oral statement of the girl that she is major and seeks protection. 14. It goes without saying that all these observations are made only for the purpose of direction to the respondents to grant protection of life and liberty of the petitioners who claimed to be major and have entered into a wedlock. 15. With the aforesaid rider, the police authority may grant protection from harassment to the petitioners. 16. The writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ---------- (2020)10ILR A234 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J. THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J. Writ- C No. 13916 of 2020 Pooja ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, Sri Om Prakash Kannaujia Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Alternative Remedy - Cancellation of caste certificate - The impugned order has been passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the caste certificate - Against the impugned order, the petitioner has a right of appeal before the Divisional Level Appellate forum as provided in paras 2 and 3 of the Government Order dated 27.01.2011 - Leaving open to the petitioner to file appeal, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide appeal without raising any objection as to the limitation. (Para 4, 5, 6 and 8) Writ Petition dismissed (E-1) (Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Mishra, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. On 17.09.2020, this Court has passed the following order:- "By the impugned minutes of the meeting of the District Level Committee dated 29.07.2020, the petitioner's caste certificate of Schedule Tribes was cancelled and the impugned consequential order dated 30.07.2020 has been passed by the District Magistrate, Mirzapur cancelling the caste certificate. Sri S.N. Shukla, learned standing counsel submits that against the impugned order, the petitioner has a right of appeal before the Divisional Level Committee under the Government Order dated 27.01.2011. He prays for a day's time to produce the Government Order dated 27.01.2011. As prayed by learned standing counsel, put up tomorrow as a fresh case at 10 A.M. for further hearing."