Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., decided upon the prayer of protection being sought by a boy and girl living together on their own free will as husband and wife with threats and harassment.
The present matter is in regard to seek a direction upon the respondents to not interfere in the petitioner’s married life and the protection of their lives has also been sought.
Serious Danger to Life
Petitioners claimed that they are adults and living together on their own free will, though they are being threatened and harassed by the private respondent and his other family members.
Family Honour
Further, the petitioners added that they are living as husband and wife and have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of his family.
They seek protection as their lives may be endangered.
Decision
Bench stated that the present petition is to be disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court.
Court referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Gian Devi v. Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P., (2006) 5 SCC 475; and Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 and observed that the law has been settled by the Supreme Court 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.”
Therefore, petitioners are at liberty to live together and no person shall be permitted to interfere in their peaceful living.
Petitioners shall approach the police authority concerned in case of any disturbance of their peaceful living.
In view of the above, the petition was disposed of. [Priyanka v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 13345 of 2020, decided on 03-09-2020]
Devika Ji, As a simple reader I also request you to specify who actually the Respondent was. I also request that if the Court has gone by previous Judgement a brief outcome of the previous case may be mentioned. It would be better if some trail blazing or landmark Judgements are included. Anyway, thanks.
From a plain reading of the judgment it is not clear who the respondents are. It can only be inferred that they are the petitioner wife’s family.