PRATEEKSHA Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife and to direct the respondents No. 2 and 3 to provide protection and security to the petitioners.

(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 is major aged about 19 years. As per her high school certificate the date of birth of the petitioner No. 1 is 29/5/2004. It is also submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is unmarried and she fell in love with petitioner No. 2 who is aged about 19 years. It is also submitted that as per high school certificate the date of birth of petitioner No. 2 is 9/3/2004. It is also submitted that the petitioners are living in relationship since August, 2022. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 5 who is the father of the petitioner No. 1 is not happy with the choice of the petitioner No. 1 and has been constantly harassing and threatening the petitioner to their lives. It is also submitted that the petitioners moved an application to the Commissioner of Police, Kanpur Nagar seeking protection to their lives from respondent No. 5, however, no protection has been provided to the petitioners.

(3.) In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of Deepika and another Vs. State of U.P. and others (2013) ADJ 534 wherein it was held that "Where a boy and girl are major and they are living with their free will then nobody including their parents have any right to interfere with living together." Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Nandkumar and another Vs. State of Kerala and others Criminal Appeal No. 597 of 2018 wherein it was held that "insofar as the marriage of appellant No. 1 who was less than 21 years of age on the date of marriage was not of marriageable age with girl is concerned, it cannot be said that merely because the appellant No. 1 was less than 21 years of age, marriage between the parties is null and void." Reliance is also placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Saloni Yadav and another Vs. State of U.P. and other Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7996 of 2023 .