BHARTI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and material placed on record.

(2.) As per the office report dtd. 17/7/2023, steps has not been taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners for service of notice on respondent No.4 whereas learned counsel for the petitioners denied this statement of office report and stated that he has already taken steps and prayed that present writ petition be decided on merits as per the averments made in the writ petition and material on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners belongs to Hindu religion and have attained age of majority. They are presently living in live-in relationship out of love and intimacy. They are sui juris and have every right to live together. They are able to understand their interest. They want to solemnized their marriage but as soon petitioner No.1 has not obtained divorce from her husband, the petitioners could not enter into marital alliance. Their live-in relationship is strongly opposed by respondent No.4, who is husband of petitioner No.1. The petitioners are apprehending danger to their live and liberty from respondent No.4. The petitioner No.1 has parted with her husband i.e. respondent No.4. She even moved an application before S.O. concerned seeking protection for herself as well as petitioner No.2 but no action has been taken by the police in the matter. She moved an application before S.P. Muzaffarnagar for protection through registered post on 8/2/2023, for the same relief. The date of birth of petitioner No.1 is mentioned as 1/2/2003 and that of petitioner No.2 is 14/5/2001 in their respective Adhar cards and thus, they have attained age of majority. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited a judgement of Apex Court in the case of Nandakumar and another vs. State of Kerala and others, 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 899, in support of his contention.