Dismissed

Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020WRIC/10958/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking protection from alleged false implication and interference in the petitioner's matrimonial life. The court held that the petition was not maintainable as it was based solely on apprehension, conjectures, and surmises without any substantive ground or assigned reason.

What did the court decide?

The petition dismissing the petitioner's plea for writ of mandamus and protection was dismissed.

Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10958 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Sri Vinay Kumar Mishra, counsel for the petitioners has filed this petition but there prima facie appears to be a defect in the petition, inasmuch as, in the array of the respondent no.4, details of the respondent no.4 are not complete.

¶6

It is surprising that Registry has not pointed out any defect in the writ petition and, therefore, it casts aspersions on the checker who checked the writ petition and allowed it to be entertained and listed without marking defect of incomplete details in the array of the respondents.

¶7

Sri Mishra, counsel for the petitioners prays for and is allowed to correct the details of the respondent no.4 as are mentioned on page-4 of the writ petition.

¶8

Let necessary correction be carried out during the course of the day.

¶9

Petitioners have filed this civil misc. writ petition on the ground that both of them are major and have attained prescribed age of marriage, as a result, entered into a wedlock on 13th June, 2020. Now they apprehend that respondent no.4 who is father of petitioner no.1-Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha may falsely implicate the petitioners and lodge a false and frivolous case as respondent no.4 is consistently approaching respondent no.3 and is applying political pressure to lodge FIR against the petitioners. Based on such apprehension, petitioners have filed

¶10

this petition seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 to 4 not to interfere in peaceful matrimonial life of petitioners and further direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to provide adequate security to the petitioners. It is evident that marriage which was performed at Aarya Samaj 181/2 Kalyanpur, Kanpur Nagar has been registered and certificate of registration of marriage as is contained in Annexure-2 has already been issued in favour of the petitioners. No cause of action has been shown nor any reason has been assigned as to why they are apprehensive of being harassed by the respondent no.4.

¶11

In view of such facts that no substantive ground for apprehension has been made out, a petition filed to prevent possible legal action and consequential relief of protection merely based on apprehension, conjectures and surmises is not maintainable. This practice of approaching the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction at the drop of the hat, in fact amounts to misuse of the process, inasmuch as, several alternative efficacious statutory remedies are available to the petitioners, in case any coercive action is initiated against them or they are subject to any real harassment.

¶12

In view of such facts, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Ashutosh

Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rakhi Kushwaha 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

Mohan Singh and Another Vs Rajendri and 4 Others

Madanpal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishnamohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Ragini and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Kadir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Atul Kumar Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others