The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has held that no person can create a hindrance in the peaceful marital life of a couple who, after obtaining a mutual divorce, later remarried each other. The Court was hearing a protection petition filed by Roopa Rani and another, who were apprehensive that the father of petitioner no. 2 might create a hindrance in their peaceful life.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra heard the matter and disposed of the writ petition on September 23, 2026.
The petitioners had previously been husband and wife and have two children. According to the order, the couple had matrimonial differences arising from what the Court described as trivial disputes. They subsequently sought mutual divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained a decree of divorce.
After some time, the couple decided to reunite in the interest of their family and children. They remarried at an Arya Samaj Temple on April 2, 2026, and produced the marriage certificate before the Court. However, the father of petitioner no. 2 was not agreeable to the remarriage, leading the couple to apprehend interference in their peaceful life.
The High Court noted that the couple had already remarried after obtaining a mutual divorce and were living together with their two children. In these circumstances, the Court held that neither a private person nor a public person could create a hindrance in their peaceful life.
While reaching this conclusion, the Bench relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, reported in 2006 (5) SCC 475. The High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s observation that major adults have the freedom to choose whom they marry and should not face threats, harassment or violence because of their marital choice.
The Supreme Court had observed:
"This is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes. If the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage the maximum they can do is that they can cut-off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage."
Before concluding the matter, the Allahabad High Court also expressed concern over the circumstances in which the couple had first divorced and later remarried. The Bench observed that marriage is a significant institution and should not be treated lightly merely because of trivial disputes, particularly where the couple has two children.
The Court stated:
"Before parting with the case, we find it appropriate to observe that the pious institution of marriage should not be taken lightly and on account of some trivial dispute, taking steps to get mutual divorce and thereafter again remarrying when the couple is having two children is really a sorry state of affairs."
The High Court held that the protection recognised in Lata Singh would be available to the petitioners and made it clear that no one could create a hindrance in their peaceful married life. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.
Case Title: Roopa Rani And Another v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Home And 3 Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9388 of 2026
