Court No. - 86
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28370 of 2021 Petitioner :- Smt. Sakshi Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shamimul Hasnain,Mohammad Azam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.
The 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 lives and liberty.
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 lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed.
In support of their age, the petitioner no. 1 has brought on record her pass certificate of Indian Certificate of Secondary Education and petitioner no. 2 has brought on record copy of his certificate-cum-marks sheet of High School Examination- 2007, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 01.10.1993 and that of petitioner no. 2 as 11.10.1991. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have got married with each other on 04.10.2021 and their marriage is registered under Uttar Pradesh Marriage Registration Rule, 2017.
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 lives may be endangered. It is averred in para- 16 of the writ petition that as known to the petitioners by now no F.I.R. is lodged against the petitioners nor any investigation is going on.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State functionaries.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that life and liberty of the petitioners as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be curtailed in any manner.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has argued that there is no permission of District Magistrate concerned before or after for marriage of the petitioners. Under the circumstances, no protection can be granted to the petitioners.The Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021 has been enforced on the date of marriage of the petitioners and it cannot be said that provisions of aforesaid Act is not warranted or called for in the present matter. Section 8 of the said Act reads as under:
"8 (1) One who desires to convert his/her religion, shall give a declaration in the form prescribed in Schedule-1 at least sixty days in advance to the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate specially authorized by District Magistrate, that he wishes to convert his/her religion on his/her own and with his/her free consent and without any force, coercion, undue influence or allurement.
(2) The religious convertor, who performs conversion ceremony for converting any person of one religion to another religion, shall give one month's advance notice in the form prescribed in Schedule-II of such conversion, to the District Magistrate or any other officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate appointed for that purpose by the District Magistrate of the district where such ceremony is proposed to be performed.
(3) The District Magistrate, after receiving the information under sub-sections (1) and (2), shall get an enquiry conducted through police with regard to real intention, purpose and cause of the proposed religious conversion.
(4) Contravention of sub-section (1) and/or sub-section (2) shall have the effect of rendering the proposed conversion, illegal and void.
(5) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (1) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees ten thousand.
(6) Whoever contravenes the provisions of sub-section (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees twenty five thousand."
The petitioners are bound to follow provisions of Section 8 of the said Act.
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.
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."
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am 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 Senior Superintendent of Police,Prayagraj i.e. the second respondent, with a certified copy of this order, who shall provide immediate protection to the petitioners.
A liberty is granted to the 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.
The petitioners undertake to move appropriate application before District Magistrate, Prayagraj within a period of two months. If the petitioners do not obtain the permission as aforesaid within the stipulated period herein above, the protection granted under this order shall stand automatically vacated.
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.
However, this order would not come in way of investigation, if any,pending before the police authorities and the law will take its own course.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.10.2021 MN/-