Chhaya Shivaji Kharat And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with prayer to issue writ, order or direction commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to protect the peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners and to ensure that respondent no. 4 and other relatives of petitioner no. 1, may not interfere in peaceful life of petitioner. It is also prayed therein that respondent No. 3 be directed to not harass the petitioners at the instance of respondent No. 4 and his relatives.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are inter-religious couple. Petitioner No. 1 professes Hindu religion, whereas petitioner No. 2 professes Muslim religion. They have attained the age of majority, as date of birth of petitioner No. 1- Chhaya Shivaji Kharat is 27.03.1992 and that of petitioner No. 2-Hasim is 28.03.2002 in their respective Aadhar Cards. Petitioner No. 2 is doing a private job and earns around Rs. 40,000/- per month and he is able to cater the needs of petitioner No. 1. The petitioners apprehend danger to their life and liberty from respondent No. 4, who is father of petitioner No. 1 and is strongly opposed to live-in relationship of the petitioners and the petitioners apprehend honour killing at the behest of respondent No. 4. They have filed a joint affidavit in support of the pleadings made in present writ petition. Petitioner No. 1 moved an application before S.S.P. Bulandshahar seeking protection for herself and petitioner No. 2 from her father, respondent No.2, but no action has been taken thereon.

4. Per contra, learned Additional C.S.C. Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi submitted that in similar matters a Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Rawat and Another Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others, has refused to grant protection to the petitioners, who were inter-religious couple. In that case also petitioner No. 1 was Hindu by religion and petitioner No. 2 was Muslim by religion.

5. I have gone through the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kiran Rawat and Another Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023, in that case the petitioners had taken plea that their case was squarely covered with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Singh Versus State of U.P. & another, AIR 2006 SC 2522. The Division Bench of this Court in Kiran Rawat's case discussed the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in Lata Singh Versus State of U.P. & another cited above as well as Madan Mohan Singh versus Rajnikant 2010 (9) SCC 209, Indra Sarma versus V.K.V. Sarma 2013 (15) 755, Nandakumar and Another versus State of Kerala 2018 SCC online Supreme Court 492, D Velusamy versus D Patchaiammal 2010 (10) SCC 469 and observed that in Muslim law no recognition can be given to sex outside marriage.This Court observed that writ jurisdiction being extraordinary jurisdiction is not made to resolve such type of dispute between two private parties as in this case, petitioners not state that they are validly married couple. They do not claim for protection of the marital relationship which is allegedly being interfered with by their parents or relatives who are private respondents. The petitioners only allege that they being major are entitled to live with whomsoever they like and the mother of petitioner No.1 is unhappy with this relationship. We believe that it is a social problem which can be uprooted socially and not by the intervention of the Writ Court in the garb of violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless harassment is established beyond doubt. If there is any real grievance of a live-in couple against their parents or relatives who are allegedly interfering with their live-in status which goes to such an extent that there is a threat of life, they are at liberty to lodge an F.I.R under Section 154 (1) or Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C, with the Police, move an application under section 156 (3) before the competent Court or file a complaint case under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

6. Considering the principle of judicial discipline, keeping in view the above dictum of Division Bench of this Court as cited above, this Court is not inclined to grant the prayer made in present writ petition.

7. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed

8. In case the petitioners approach the appropriate Court of law or to the police authority concerned raising their grievances, the same may be considered in accordance with law.

Order Date :- 17.8.2023

Nitika Sri.