Disposed

Sudaama Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2019WRIC/10255/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order mentions Article 21 life rights. The court held the petitioners right to life is sacrosanct despite Hindu Marriage Act liabilities and apprehended danger. It disposed of the petition by directing them to move application under Section 125 CrPC for protection order within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direct petitioners to move application for protection order under Section 125 CrPC before respondent no.2 within two weeks.

Sudaama Devi and Another Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10255 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sudaama Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nagendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State.

¶6

The petitioners have filed the present petition alleging that the petitioner no.1 is aged about 48 years and petitioner no.2 is aged about 49 years. It is stated that the petitioner no.1 on her free will, but outside her wedlock is staying with the petitioner no.2 in a live-in relationship on account of her strained relationship with the husband, the respondent no.4. The petitioners alleged that the respondent no.4 is a man of antisocial antecedents and the petitioners apprehend danger to their life at the instance of respondent no.4 solely on account of their live-in relationship.

¶7

Considering the averments made in the writ petition, and the settled law that despite the petitioners incurring liabilities as provided under the Hindu Marriage Act, their right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied even on the conducts of the petitioners as stated above. Right to life is sacrosanct and cannot be denied by anyone.

¶8

Considering the threat perception as raised by the petitioners, we deem it proper to direct the petitioners to move an application before the respondent no.2 within a period of two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order and the respondent no.2 is directed to pass an order expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and to ensure that the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the life and liberty of the petitioners are safeguarded in accordance with law.

¶9

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶10

Order Date :- 28.3.2019 Hasnain

Sudaama Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sudaama Devi 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Tayal Steel Rolling Mill Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Kuraisha Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinod Hdpe and Ldpd Pipe Assembling Udyog Vs Union of India and Another

Kashiram Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Nitin Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Zareef and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others