Smt. Vijybharti And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:104264
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where two adult persons have solemnized a marriage in accordance with their personal law and seek registration thereof, the police authorities are under a duty to protect them from threats, harassment, or acts of violence by any person seeking to interfere in their marital life, and to initiate criminal proceedings against any person who threatens, harasses, or commits acts of violence against them or instigates others to do so.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Heard Shri Mohd. Kamar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. After service of notice upon the private respondent no. 4 none has appeared for the respondent no. 4.
Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere, harass or cause any interference in the peaceful marital life of the petitioners and further direct the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to provide adequate protection to protect their life and liberty from respondent No.4.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners attained their age of majority and they solemnized their first marriage on 26.3.2026 and no F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner No.2 as per his knowledge and they have apprehension of threat to their life and liberty. The petitioners applied for online registration of the marriage, which is pending.
After solemnizing marriage by the petitioners they complained to the police authorities about the apprehension of threat to their life and liberty from respondent No.4, who threatened the petitioners for dire consequences and wanted interference in their married life.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Lata Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475.
Present case is related to only saving the life and liberty of the petitioners and there is no other point for consideration at this time. Due to this reason notice to Respondent No.4 is dispensed with.
As the petitioners have solemnized marriage after attaining their majority as per their personal law and applied for registration to register their marriage and both the petitioners are governed by same religion.
In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, police authorities are directed to protect the petitioners from any threat of their lives and liberty of peaceful living by harassment of anyone/Respondent No.4 from any threat or act of violence or harassment. If anyone himself or at his instigation anyone threats, harasses or commits act of violence, the police authorities of the concerned district will initiate the criminal proceedings against such person as provided by law.
The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
(Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.)
May 6, 2026
A.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free