Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2020WRIC/10961/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought a writ to prevent interference in their matrimonial life and claimed apprehension of false implication by the father of one petitioner without a conversion certificate in an inter-religious marriage. The court held that the petition was based on conjectures with no substantive ground and dismissed it for misuse of writ jurisdiction.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Ragini and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10961 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Ragini And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri K.K. Yadav, counsel for the petitioners and Sri Govind Narain Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

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 marriage contract on 25.09.2019 as is evident from 'Vivah Anubandh Patra' contained in Annexure-2. Now, they apprehend that respondent no.4 who is father of petitioner no.1-Smt. Ragini 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 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.

¶7

It is evident that petitioners are in relationship since 25.09.2019 as is mentioned in para-6 of the writ petition. 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.

¶8

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 harassment.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner no.1-Smt. Ragini is Hindu by religion whereas petitioner no.2-Mansoor Ali is Muslim and there is no certificate of conversion, therefore this Court should show indulgence as there is rampant misuse of liberty by members of a particular community. This argument is, prima facie, absurd and unconstitutional and deserves to be rejected and is rejected.

¶10

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

¶11

Order Date :- 8.7.2020 Ashutosh

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

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

Case brief

What is this about?

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. Rakhi Kushwaha 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