Dismissed

Smt. Jyoti Maurya Thru. Her Husband Sri Himanshu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Jun 2024/112/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court granted one week extension for depositing an ordered sum but ultimately dismissed the habeas corpus petition after the petitioner failed to comply with the extended deadline, despite her claim of financial hardship and desire for freedom.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed due to failure to deposit the ordered amount within the extended time limit.

Smt. Jyoti Maurya Thru. Her Husband… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:44084

¶2

Court No. - 12

¶3

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 112 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Jyoti Maurya Thru. Her Husband Sri Himanshu Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Bharti,Indrapal Singh,Jay Kumar Soni,Nupur,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

On 14th June 2024, following order was passed:-

¶8

"In Compliance of order dated 10.06.2024, the corpus-Smt Joti Maurya and Sri Himanshu are present before this Court in person.

¶9

Vide order dated 10.06.2024, the husband of the corpus Himanshu was directed to bring a Certificate of fixed deposit of any Nationlized Bank in the name of corpus-Smt Jyoti Maurya.

¶10

Today, Sri Jay Kumar Soni, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner and filed an application for extension of time of order dated 10.06.2024 passed by this Court and submits that he has filed his Vakalatnama in the Registry on behalf of petitioner. The application is taken on record.

¶11

Sri Jay Kumar Soni, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner, but he has not taken no objection certificate from the earlier counsel.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner is suffering from several diseases and her treatment is going on due to this reason the petitioner could not deposit Rs. 4,00,000/- in time as directed by this Court vide order dated 10.06.2024 and he prays for some further time for the same.

¶13

Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the opposite party No.4 and Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing of opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 have no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

The application for extension of time is allowed.

¶15

Accordingly, the husband of the corpus Himanshu is granted further one week time to bring a Certificate of fixed deposit of any Nationlized Bank in the name of corpus-Smt Jyoti Maurya without fail as directed vide order dated 10.06.2024.

¶16

List this case on 24.06.2024 before appropriate Bench.

¶17

The court will pass the final order on the next date.

¶18

On that date, the parties who are present today shall again appear in person.

¶19

The corpus-Smt Jyoti Maurya shall accompany with her alleged husband Sri Himanshu.

¶20

In Case, the amount as directed vide order dated 10.06.2024 is not deposited on the next date, this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition shall stands automatically dismissed. "

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant could not deposit the aforesaid amount as there is financial hardship.

¶22

From perusal of the order, it transpires that the last opportunity was granted to the applicant but he has failed to comply with the order, thus, the instant petition is hereby dismissed .

¶23

Smt Jyoti Maurya submits that she is willing to go with her husband. Since, Smt Jyoti Maurya is major and therefore, she is free to live with her own free will.

¶24

Further, the In-charge of the Police Station concerned is directed to take care of the security of Smt. Jyoti Maurya.

¶25

Consigned to record.

¶26

Order Date :- 24.6.2024 Anurag

¶27

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Jyoti Maurya Thru. Her Husband Sri Himanshu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jyoti Maurya Thru. Her Husband Sri Himanshu v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lal Babu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Dheeraj Kumar Upadhayay @ Baba vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko.

Dinesh Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Digvijay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vijaya Nand Maurya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Hemraj Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others