Dismissed

Neha Khatoon and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Jul 2020WRIC/10651/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a couple seeking protection from the husband's father. The court held the petition lacked merit, was based on surmises with no disclosed cause of action, and failed to verify the alleged complaint lodged with the police.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it was devoid of merit and based on surmises.

Neha Khatoon and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10651 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Neha Khatoon And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaytri Rajput,Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rajeev Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State are present.

¶6

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners who have allegedly solemnized marriage on 12.06.2020 as per the Muslim customs and traditions as is evident from the certificate Annexure-P3.

¶7

It is submitted that petitioners anticipate threat from respondent no. 3 i.e., father of petitioner no. 1- Smt. Neha Khatoon as he is not happy with the marriage performed by petitioner no. 1 with petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she is not able to live with her husband and is constantly obstructed to visit her matrimonial home by respondent no. 3 and therefore, she had filed an application with the Superintendent of Police, District Jalaun as is available on record as Annexure-4 requesting him to not to take any action in case any complaint is filed against her husband or in-laws by her parents and also seeking protection. No cause of action has been disclosed.

¶8

When specifically asked as to the acknowledgment in regard to the complaint which was allegedly lodged by the petitioners as is available in the form and shape of Annexure-4, learned counsel submits that he is not in possession of any acknowledgment of the complaint. Thus there is no material to verify the correctness and truthfulness of the complaint.

¶9

As far as contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned that she is not able to visit her matrimonial home, is not made out because in this very representation allegedly made to the Superintendent of Police, it is mentioned that she is staying with her husband at Gugauli Mustaqil P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun and her husband, who is engaged in profession is earning handsomely taking good care of petitioner no. 1 and family of petitioner no. 2. Thus, the document available on record is contradictory to the oral pleadings

¶10

advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. Further there is no disclosure of any cause of action and petition has been filed merely on the basis of surmises and conjunctures.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel for the State in his turn submits that there is no document showing registration of the marriage besides this submission there is no assistance from learned Standing Counsel for the State. He is not in a position to answer the queries put-forth by this Court.

¶12

However, looking to the fact that this petition has been filed merely on the basis of surmises and conjunctures and there is no mention of any cause of action and nothing prevents the petitioners from lodging a case against the private respondents in case they receive any actual threat, petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 6.7.2020 Vikram/-

Neha Khatoon and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neha Khatoon and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Nath Singh and Others Vs Harmendra Singh and Others

Ram Niwas and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru Collector and Another

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Mamta Devi and 4 Others

Uma Gupta and 4 Others Vs Paras Jain and 5 Others

National Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager,Civil Lines Vs Smt. Sanju and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Vs Sanjeev Goel