Anurag Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 50

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 189 of 2021

Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yashpal Yadav,Hare Ram Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Sucheta Pathak,Sudeep Kumar Pathak

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent No.3, is taken on record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State are present.

¶7

Today when the matter is taken up, the corpus- Deeksha has been produced by respondent No.3- Sushil Kumar, her father, in compliance of the directions of this Court issued on 09.01.2023, and her statement has been recorded before the Court in which she stated that her name is Deeksha, D/o Sushil Kumar, R/o Village- Narkhurd, P.S.- Rasoolabad, District- Kanpur Dehat. She stated her age as 23 years and that she is married with Dharmesh Kumar, R/o Shivrajpur, District Kanpur Nagar and her marriage with Dharmesh took place on 08.11.2019. She also stated that she completed her studies up to graduation and her date of birth according to her High-School Marksheet is 14.07.2001 and the same has also been corrected in her Aadhar Card also. She has categorically stated that she never solemnized her marriage with petitioner No.-1 Anurag Kumar, and he has deceitfully obtained her signature on some papers and she is not aware about the registration of her marriage with Anurag Kumar. She next stated that she also bears a male child born out of wedlock with Dharmesh Kumar and presently she is residing with her husband- Dharmesh Kumar and her fatherSushil Kumar. She further stated that she is not willing to go with petitioner no. 1- Anurag Kumar, as she was only acquainted with him due to her studies in college. She further stated that he has obtained her signature by threatening of life of her father and registered the same subsequently. She further stated that this allegation is false that her father and family members had not accepted her marriage with Anurag Kumar due to difference in their caste. The real fact is that she never married to Anurag Kumar.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present

¶9

petition has been filed with the averments that petitioner No.2Deeksha and petitioner No.1- Anurag Kumar, were in love affairs and they have solemnized their marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir at Kanpur Nagar on 16.11.2019 and thereafter they got their marriage registered on 07.12.2019. Both the petitioners were admittedly major at the date of marriage, but the marriage was not accepted by respondent No.3- Sushil Kumar, father of petitioner No.2, due to difference in their caste and, therefore, respondent No.3 took her away forcefully on 26.02.2020 along with him from her matrimonial home. Thereafter, he detained her illegally. The respondent No.3 refused to send the corpus back to her matrimonial home in spite of request made by petitioner No.1 and his family members. Due to obstinate attitude of respondent No.3, the petitioner No.1 was deprived of company and companionship of his wife Deeksha.

¶10

However, in the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3, he has stated that petitioner No.2 Deeksha has married to one Dharmesh on 08.11.2019 in arranged form and a copy of invitation card is filed along with the counter affidavit. The writ petition has been filed on false averments and its contents are denied and she has also given birth to a child born out of her wedlock with said Dharmesh Kumar.

¶11

Considering the statements of the corpus taken before the Court and private respondents including learned A.G.A. of the State, this fact is obvious that presently the petitioner is residing with her parents and husband Dharmesh Kumar with whom she gave birth to a child and she is not inclined to go with petitioner No.1, therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and become infructuous at present and is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed on having become infructuous.

¶13

Office is directed to pay the amount deposited by petitioner No.1, for production of the corpus-Deeksha.

¶14

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 Nitika

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Kumar and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Kumar 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

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sheetal Sonkar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Reena and Another Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Km. Neha (Corpus) and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Neha Parvin and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Kesarwani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Purnima Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others