Dismissed

Nirmala v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Aug 2024WRIA/12051/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Wife sought mandamus to have her and her daughter recorded as nominees in her husband-teacher's service-book. The court found she concealed a family court decree dissolving the marriage, dismissed the petition and imposed Rs.1,000 cost.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed with Rs.1,000/- cost imposed on the petitioner, to be deposited with the High Court Bar Association within two weeks.

Nirmala vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:130387

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12051 of 2024 Petitioner :- Nirmala Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hare Ram

¶4

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Aditya Kumar Triathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Hare Ram, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶6

Sri Shivanand, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama today in the Court on behalf of respondent no.5. The same is taken on record.

¶7

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the following prayers:

¶8

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents (respondent no.3) to decide the claim of the petitioner regarding the recorded her name as nominee in the service-book of her husband.

¶9

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents (respondent no.3) to decide the representation/applications of the petitioner within the stipulated period which is pending since 12.10.2022 before the District Basic Education Officer, Etawah."

¶10

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the husband of the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher in Primary Pathshala Sahasapur, Block Saifai District Etawah. It is further argued that a daughter namely- Gungun born from the wedlock of petitioner and respondent no.5, who is aged about 13 years. It is further argued that due to conspiracy of the husband of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner along with her daughter, have not been recorded in the service-Book till date. It is further argued that the husband of the petitioner wants second marriage with another woman and when the petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid facts, she submitted a representation dated 12.10.2022 along with an affidavit before respondent no.3- District Basic Education Officer, Etawah with the prayer to enter the name of the petitioner and her daughter in the service-book of her husband. Copies of which were appended as Annexure no.2 to the

¶11

present writ petition. Apart from the above, another representation was submitted by the petitioner in this regard address to the same authority on 04.12.2022, copy of which was forwarded by her through registered post. Copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.3 to the present petition. Apart from the same, certain other representations were also made by the petitioner, which is also annexed to the writ petition.

¶12

Today, when the matter is taken up, the instructions received from the Office of respondent no.4, which is placed before this Court by Sri Hare Ram, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4. The same is taken on record.

¶13

It is stated in the aforesaid instructions that a case being H.M.A. Case No.415 of 2018 (Mukesh Babu vs. Smt. Nirmala) was filed by the husband of the petitioner, namely Mukesh Babu. In the aforesaid case after hearing counsel for the parties at length, a final decree was passed by Principal Judge, Family Court Etawah on 01.12.2023 by which the marriage solemnized between the parties were came to an end. Copy of the judgment placed before this Court by Sri Hare Ram, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4. The same is also taken on record.

¶14

After going through the aforesaid judgment, a query was raised by this Court that why the aforesaid fact has not been disclosed by petitioner while filing the present petition no satisfactory reply has been given by the counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

From perusal of the record of the present case, the Court is prima facie of the opinion that the order passed by the family court dated 01.12.2023 has been deliberately and wilfully not placed by the petitioner while filing the present writ petition. Apart from the same, in her last representation dated 11.03.2024, i.e., after the order dated 01.12.2023 passed by the family court there is no reference of the aforesaid order, copy of the same is annexed as Annexure No.4 to the present petition.

¶16

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has willfully concealed the material facts. Taking the lenient view, the present petition is dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.1,000/- upon the petitioner namely- Nirmala. The same shall be deposited by her within a period of two weeks from today before the High Court Bar Association.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.8.2024 Priya

¶18

Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Nirmala v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Similar cases

Priyanu Katiyar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mulkilat Upadhyay vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravi Kumar vs State of Up and 3 Others

Rajeev Kumar and 33 Others vs State of Up and 4 Others

Devi Prasad Pandey and 17 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jitendra Singh Rajput and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others