Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jyoti Alias Jannat and anr. Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Jyoti Alias Jannat and anr. vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Writ petition allowed Court Allahabad Decided Aug 11, 2003
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/477365

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 21541 of 2003
Subject
Constitution;Criminal
Disposition
Writ petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution - right to individual liberty - Article 21 of Constitution of India, Sections 363 and 366 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of Indian Majority Act, 1875 - right to individual liberty to be given highest preference in a free and democratic country - petitioners being above 18 years of age are majo...

Key legal issue
Constitution;Criminal
Outcome / disposition
Writ petition allowed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 21; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 363 and 366; Indian Majority Act, 1875 - Sections 3

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jyoti Alias Jannat and anr.

Advocate B.B. Paul, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Advocate N.S. Chahar, Adv. and ;S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 21; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 363 and 366; Indian Majority Act, 1875 - Sections 3
Reported In
2003(4)AWC2844

Excerpt

constitution - right to individual liberty - article 21 of constitution of india, sections 363 and 366 of indian penal code, 1860 and section 3 of indian majority act, 1875 - right to individual liberty to be given highest preference in a free and democratic country - petitioners being above 18 years of age are major and are allowed to exercise their freedom in whatever manner they want and even the parents cannot be allowed to infringe this freedom and they cannot be harassed and stopped from staying with each other. - - 2. the petitioners as well as the mother of petitioner no.orderm. katju and r. s. tripathi, jj.1. heard counsel for the parties.2. the petitioners as well as the mother of petitioner no. 1 have appeared before us. petitioner no. 1 is a major as is evident from her high school certificate filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition, which shows that her date of birth is 20.7.1984. thus, she is over 19 year of age. according to the provisions of the indian majority act, 1875, a person who is 18 years of age is major vide section 3 of the said act. the law deems that a major understands his/her welfare. hence a major can go wherever he/she likes and live with any body. this is a free, democratic and secular country. hence, if a person is a major even parents cannot interfere with that individual.3. the petitioners who appeared before us have stated that they are living with each other of their own free will. in the counter-affidavit which has been filed it has been stated that a first information report has been lodged under sections 363 and 366, i.p.c. that may be so, but once a person becomes a major, that person cannot be restrained from going anywhere or living with any body. individual liberty under article 21 has the highest place in our constitution.4. under the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is allowed. a mandamus is issued to the respondents not to harass or threaten the petitioners and allow them to live peacefully with each other. the senior superintendent of police, agra and superintendent of police, firozabad, will ensure compliance of this order.5. the petitioners have stated that they need security to go from here to firozabad as they have apprehension about their safety. the court officer of this court will contact the local police for providing security to them at allahabad and for their journey to firozabad. further, the petitioners shall be provided security at firozabad, by the police authorities concerned, there.

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Katju and R. S. Tripathi, JJ.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners as well as the mother of petitioner No. 1 have appeared before us. Petitioner No. 1 is a major as is evident from her High School Certificate filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, which shows that her date of birth is 20.7.1984. Thus, she is over 19 year of age. According to the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person who is 18 years of age is major vide Section 3 of the said Act. The law deems that a major understands his/her welfare. Hence a major can go wherever he/she likes and live with any body. This is a free, democratic and secular country. Hence, if a person is a major even parents cannot interfere with that individual.

3. The petitioners who appeared before us have stated that they are living with each other of their own free will. In the counter-affidavit which has been filed it has been stated that a First Information Report has been lodged under Sections 363 and 366, I.P.C. That may be so, but once a person becomes a major, that person cannot be restrained from going anywhere or living with any body. Individual liberty under Article 21 has the highest place in our Constitution.

4. Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued to the respondents not to harass or threaten the petitioners and allow them to live peacefully with each other. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra and Superintendent of Police, Firozabad, will ensure compliance of this order.

5. The petitioners have stated that they need security to go from here to Firozabad as they have apprehension about their safety. The Court Officer of this Court will contact the local police for providing security to them at Allahabad and for their journey to Firozabad. Further, the petitioners shall be provided security at Firozabad, by the police authorities concerned, there.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial