Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 160883 (ALL)

SMT. CHANDNI DEVI AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/8005/2025 · 2025-09-02

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, S Q H Rizvi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8005 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Aman Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Girjesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to opposite party no. 4 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this petition, petitioners have prayed for following reliefs: "issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties concerned not to harass the petitioners in any manner and to protect the matrimonial life of the petitioners." 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are major and have married each other on their own volition on 28.08.2025 in Arya Samaj Temple, Shivpuri Kamta, Chinhat, Lucknow and living together as husband and wife. By means of Annexure No.1, marriage certificate has been enclosed. So as to show the age of the parties, Aadhar Card of petitioner No.2 and relevant part of voter list of petitioner No.1 have been enclosed wherein the date of birth of petitioner No.1 is indicated as 23.07.2006 and of petitioner No.2 is 01.01.2003. It is contended that opposite party no.4 is not happy with the marriage and as such he is creating hindrance in the peaceful married life of the petitioners. Learned counsel has further stated that no First Information Report has been registered against the petitioners in this regard. 5. In Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2006 (5) SCC 475, the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aman Kumar Shrivastav, Priyanka Shahi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt. Chandni Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Apex Court in para-17 has observed as under:- "17. .... 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 inter-religious 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." 6. The petitioners have also pleaded for protection under Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees liberty to lead life of their own with dignity. 7. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the opposite parties not to interfere in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners in any manner. 8. It is made clear that if any F.I.R. is already registered on the issue, the order passed by this Court shall automatically stands discharged. 9. The petitioners shall get their marriage registered under the "Uttar Pradesh Marriages Registration Rules, 2017" within two months from today, failing which this order will automatically come to an end. 10. The Registrar of Marriages concerned is directed to process and issue the registration certificate to the petitioners as per law at the earliest. 11. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not entered into nor adjudicated the age of the petitioners nor veracity/validity of the alleged marriage. September 2, 2025 Reena/- CRLP No. 8005 of 2025 2 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench