Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37180 of 2019
Petitioner :- Anuradha Devi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kumar,Dileep Kumar Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashutosh Srivastava
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Manish Kumar holding brief of Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents.
Sri Manish Kumar, learned counsel states that Sri Ashutosh Srivastava has filed his Vakalatnama on 26.11.2019. The same is not on record.
Office is directed to trace and place the same on record.
The Educational certificates of the petitioners have been annexed. Certificate of marriage have also been annexed.
Drawing attention to Annexure No.2 to the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner sought to argue that the Aadhar Card No. of petitioner no.1 is given in paragraph-5 and the same is not available with the petitioner at the moment and an attempt was made to obtain the same but was not successful. Education Certificates herein reflects that she is aged about 27 years.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 states that a missing report of petitioner no.1 was given to the Police.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no first information report in this case and only lodging of missing report has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4.
The petitioners as usual are claiming protection as they have married of their own free will against the wishes of their parents/relatives.
In support of their age, petitioner no. 1 brought on record her High School Mark-sheet, wherein the date of birth of is shown to be 2.7.1992 and that of petitioner No.2 brought on record his AADHAR Card, wherein date of birth is shown as 12.3.1995. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major.
Learned Standing Counsel states that as per the Government Order dated 31.8.2019, the petitioners may approach the police and the requisite protection shall be given to them.
In view of legal position which has been summed up in the case of Pooja and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (6) ADJ 225 without expressing any opinion about the marriageable age of both the petitioners, validity of their marriage or the genuineness of the marriage certificate, if any, produced or the change of their religion, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned court of magistrate/police authorities/Senior Superintendent of Police and to appraise any of these authorities of the disturbance by outsiders in their married life and in case it is so done, the police authorities would ensure that they are not wanted or involved in any case in connection with the above marriage or living together and further that they apply for registration of the marriage in accordance with the provisions of the U.P. Marriage Registration Rules, 2017 within a period of two months from today, as registration of marriage is compulsory vide decisions of the Supreme Court report in (2006) 2 SCC 578 and (2008) 1 SCC 180 Seema (Smt) vs.
Ashwani Kumar and in case they fail to apply for registration of their marriage, the protection herein above would cease to operate.
The filing of this petition or the order of its disposal would not be treated as proof of marriage between the petitioners which would be subject to declaration of their marriageable status by the court of competent jurisdiction or upon the registration of their marriage with the competent authority in accordance with law.
Since the petition is being disposed of in limine, any person aggrieved by it is at liberty to apply for its recall, if the order has been obtained by suppression or concealment of facts or on false averments.
However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any, pending before the police authorities.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with above observations.
Order Date :- 29.11.2019 Aditya