Disposed

Mrs. Neha Chaudhari @ Neha Kushwaha and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2022WRIC/560/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a marriage under Section 363 IPC. The court directed the petitioner to appear before a Chief Judicial Magistrate to determine her age. Protection from interference is contingent upon a finding that she was major at the time of marriage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate for age evidence; protection contingent on FInding that she was major at marriage.

Mrs. Neha Chaudhari @ Neha Kushwaha and Another Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 560 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Mrs. Neha Chaudhari @ Neha Kushwaha And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶6

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to visit the premises of petitioners in odd hours and also protect the married life of the petitioners in any manner.The interim relief of the same effect is also prayed for.

¶7

As per the version of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1, namely, Neha Chaudhari is major and she has married with the petitioner no.2 with her own sweet will. She is said to be major and on being major, she can live and marry with anyone as per her sweet will. So the prayer is made to get the relief.

¶8

The prayer is opposed by the learned Standing Counsel on the ground that an FIR has been lodged by the father of the girl, petitioner no.1 under Section 363 IPC which shows that the girl is minor. So the relief cannot be granted to the petitioners.

¶9

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed Aadhar Card of the petitioner no.1 and her birth certificate.

¶10

The birth certificate cannot be said to be a reliable document as the same has been registered on 22.12.2021 only one day after the alleged solemnization of the marriage of the petitioner and

¶11

the Aadhar Card is also not a document to prove her age as she is major. No other proof of age is on the record.

¶12

So, it is directed to the petitioner no.1 to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned on 21.02.2022 who shall take statement of the petitioner no.1 and after collecting the evidence regarding the age of the girl, he shall pass an order regarding custody of the girl.

¶13

From the order of the Magistrate concerned, if the girl is found to be major on the date of solemnization of her marriage, only then, the respondent nos.2 and 3 will be under obligation to protect the girl, petitioner no.1 from the interferences of the respondent no.4 in her life.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 2.2.2022 Vivek Kr.

Mrs. Neha Chaudhari @ Neha Kushwaha and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Neha Chaudhari @ Neha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanhaiya Lal Nishad Vs State of U.P.

Karamjeet Singh Kapoor Vs State of U.P.

Jameel Kapadiya Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Baby Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

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