Dismissed

Arjun Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Aug 2018HABC/3163/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a habeas corpus petition filed by Arjun Prasad regarding the alleged illegal detention of Preeti Yadav. The petition was dismissed because the minor, produced before the court, flatly denied any willingness to marry the petitioner and expressed a desire to reside with her parents.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus writ petition was dismissed.

Arjun Prasad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3163 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Arjun Prasad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Mohd Adil Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit has been exchanged between the parties.

¶6

Sri B.P. Tripathi, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4 in Court is taken on record.

¶7

Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.4 and deponent is wife of respondent no.4, who has produced the corpus-Preeti Yadav daughter of Roos Yadav (respondent no.4) before this Court. She was quizzed and she was specifically asked whether she has got married or she is willing to marry with petitioner no.1-Arjun Prasad, whereupon she flatly denied the suggestion mooted before her. She also expressed her desire to accompany her mother and to reside with her parents and she has got no connection with petitioner no.1.

¶8

All the averments contained in this writ petition regarding illegal detention are false. She of her own freewill is residing with her parents and nothing took place between her and petitioner no.1. Averments to this effect have also been made in the counter affidavit.

¶9

Also heard learned counsel for both the sides.

¶10

Sri B.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that the will of the corpus is supreme. Learned A.G.A. has also supported the version of the corpus that her will should be given prime consideration.

¶11

In view of the categorical statement given by the corpus-Preeti Yadav that she is not willing to go with petitioner no.1 and she on her freewill wants to live with her parents.

¶12

In view of above, this habeas corpus writ petition looses significance and the same is dismissed .

¶13

The amount of Rs.20,000/- shall be received by the corpuspetitioner no.2-Preeti Yadav.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.8.2018 S Rawat

Arjun Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Prasad and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Shail Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Rani Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Buddhu @ Buddhu Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Israr Ahmad and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Umarani Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Brijesh Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others