AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioners filed this writ petition seeking protection from the Court against harassment and interference in their matrimonial life by the respondents. Both petitioners are adults who married each other out of their own free will. However, their parents and relatives, displeased with the marriage, have been causing disturbances with alleged support from the police. The petitioners were present in court and identified by their counsel. The case reflects a common scenario where young adults claim to have married voluntarily but face opposition and harassment, often involving local police complicity. The petitioners seek relief from such harassment and protection for their matrimonial life.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Court should provide protection to adult petitioners who claim to have married of their own free will and face harassment from their families and police.
  2. What duty the police owe when an adult couple living together faces threats or harassment from relatives or others opposing their marriage.
  3. The effect of disposing of such a writ petition on the validity of the marriage and the registration or investigation of any First Information Report (FIR) related to kidnapping or abduction allegations.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • Both petitioners are major adults who married each other voluntarily.
  • Their parents and relatives are causing harassment and disturbances in their married life.
  • There is alleged complicity or support from local police in this harassment.

Respondents' Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court recognized the recurring nature of such cases where adult couples face opposition from family members with police involvement. It emphasized that while police must investigate seriously any criminal complaint alleging minor status or kidnapping to prevent crime against young girls, they also have a duty to protect adult couples who live together by their own choice. The Court clarified that disposing of the writ petition does not amount to certifying the marriage's validity but mandates police protection after verifying the petitioners' ages. The Court stressed that once the couple is confirmed as adults, both police and civil society must ensure their safety and liberty without fear of harassment. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to approach senior police authorities with a certified copy of the order for protection. However, the Court also made clear that this order does not prevent police from registering or investigating any FIR related to offences like kidnapping or abduction, and if such an FIR already exists, the order would be ineffective.

Holding and Implications

The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek protection from the police against harassment.

The direct effect of this decision is that the petitioners, who claim to be adults living together voluntarily, are entitled to police protection against threats or harassment by any person, including their parents. The order does not validate the marriage legally nor prevent the police from investigating or registering FIRs if offences are alleged. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.

    Smt. Hema Mishra & Another Petitioners v. State Of U.P & 3 Others S

    Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

    I have heard Shri S.P Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

    This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking protection of the Court against harassment and interference in their matrimonial life by the respondents.

    Petitioner no. 1 and petitioner no. 2 are present in person in the court and have been identified by their counsel.

    It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both the petitioners are major and have married with each other out of their own free volition but some people especially their parents and relatives are not happy with their marriage and are causing disturbance in their married life with the support of the police. As per the documents filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is noticed that both the petitioners are major and adults.

    This case is not different from large number of similar cases coming to this Court wherein young girl and boy claim to be adults and raise a grievance that they have married or are living with each other of their own freewill and for that, they are being threatened and harassed by parents of one or other party generally in connivance with or with support of local police.

    In cases where criminal case is lodged by parents of girl alleging that she is a minor or she has been kidnapped for immoral purposes, Police has a duty to investigate the case seriously, so that no crime is committed against a young girl, but in other situation, where the girl is adult and has chosen to live as wife with another adult of her own freewill, the Police is required to give due protection and ensure that no harm is caused to such young couple only because the parents do not approve the decision of their children to marry as per their choice although the children have become adults.

    Disposal of writ petition in such cases may not be construed as grant of certificate by this Court that the alleged marriage is valid and in accordance with law, but nonetheless where girl and boy are adults and they are living together of their own freewill, the Police must give due protection after making enquiry in respect of claim of their age. Once the girl and boy are found to be adults, it is the duty of the Police as well as the Civil Society to ensure that they are not put to fear of their lives or liberty.

    In the present case, both the petitioners have claimed to be adults and claim to be living together of their own freewill. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to petitioners to approach the concerned Superintendent of Police or Senior Superintendent of Police with a certified copy of this order, so that petitioners are not threatened or tortured by any person, even if they happen to be the parents of petitioners, against law.

    However, disposal of this writ petition would not mean that the police is, in any way, precluded from registering a first information report against the petitioners or any person involved in commission of an offence.

    If any such first information report is lodged it would be properly investigated, in accordance with law.

    It is made clear that this order is being passed under the assumption that no First Information Report has been lodged in respect to kidnapping or abduction of the girl including other offences arising out of such kidnapping or abduction. If, any such First Information Report has already been lodged against the petitioners, this order will become inoperative.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Smt. Hema Mishra & Another Petitioners v. State Of U.P & 3 Others S
    (Dec 16, 2013)