Allowed

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

Allahabad HC16 May 2022WRIC/11679/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted a direction to respondents not to interfere with the peaceful matrimonial life of two major petitioners who voluntarily married and registered their union. The court also directed the petitioners to cooperate in police enquiry if a missing report is investigated.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondents not to interfere with petitioners' matrimonial life; petitioners directed to appear in police enquiry if required.

Smt. Meena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11679 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Meena And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Brahmanand Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

In pursuance of the order dated 27.4.2022, both the petitioners are present before this Court.

¶6

On query being made by the Court from both the petitioners whether they performed the marriage to each other and they want to live together as husband and wife, the petitioner no.1-Smt. Meena stated before this Court that she on her own wish performed marriage with petitioner no.2-Devendra Kumar and wants to live with him as his wife and the age difference between both of them will not create any hurdle with their peaceful and happy marriage life. The petitioner no.2-Devendra Kumar, husband of petitioner no.1, also promised the Court that he will keep the petitioner no.1 happy and his age will not be bar in their happy relationship.

¶7

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Sandhya Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶8

By way of the present petition, the petitioners have made the following prayers:

¶9

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to not make any kind of disturbance/harassment in matrimonial life of the petitioners.

¶10

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding

¶11

to the Respondent No.3 and 4 not to domiciliary visit to the residence of the petitioners.

¶12

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent no.2 and 3 to take necessary action in accordance with law against the respondent no.4 who are unnecessary harassing to the petitioners and disturbing the matrimonial life of the petitioners No.1 and 2, to meet the ends of justice, so the justice, may be made.

¶13

(iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶14

(v)To award cost of the petition to the petitioners against the respondents."

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner no.1 performed her marriage with petitioner no.2 and both are major and are living as husband and wife but respondent no.4, father of petitioner no.1, with the connivance of respondent no.3 creating hurdle in the peaceful marriage life of the petitioners. Therefore, a direction is required to be issued to the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful living of the petitioners.

¶16

Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that as both the petitioners have already appeared before this Court and the girl also stated that she has performed marriage of her own with the petitioner no.2 and she wants to live with him as his wife and as both are major, she is having no objection, if any appropriate direction is given by this Court. It is, however, submitted that in respect of petitioner no.1, her father

¶17

(respondent no.4) lodged a missing report at Police Station Chhajlet, Kanth, District Moradabad vide rapat no.26 dated 14.4.2022. Although, learned State Counsel fairly conceded that till date as per her information, no FIR has been lodged in respect of the girl (petitioner no.1).

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the record of the case.

¶19

As the petitioners are major and they have performed marriage to each other and their marriage is also duly registered and on query both stated that they have performed marriage without any pressure and they want to live as husband and wife. Therefore, in view thereof, it is directed that the respondents will not interfere with the peaceful marriage life of the petitioners as it is their constitutional right.

¶20

However, as the missing report in respect of petitioner no.1-Smt. Meena has already been filed by respondent no.4 (father of petitioner no.1), therefore, it is directed that whenever if there is a requirement in respect of any enquiry, then both the petitioners will appear before the Police and, if any, FIR is already in existence, then the Investigating OfÏcer will free to investigate the matter considering the fact that both the petitioners are major and they have already performed their marriage according to their own wish.

¶21

With the aforesaid direction/observation, the writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

Order Date :- 16.5.2022 SKM

¶23

Digitally signed by SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2022.05.18 15:39:55 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meena 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arjun Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rampher Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Priyanka Sharma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rita Singh and Other Vs State of U.P. and Another

Syed Aaqib Mujtaba and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another