Dismissed¶11

Meena Rawat Thru. Husband Monu Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Allahabad HC21 Apr 2025HABC/111/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 111 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC-LKO:22547; decided 21.04.2025 by Rajnish Kumar, J.; petitioner Meena Rawat through husband Monu Rawat; counsel Shiv Sharan Singh; State of U.P. represented by G.A.; petition dismissed as not pressed for non-deposit of requisite amount ordered on 08.04.2025; detenue residing with parents (respondent nos. 4 and 5) of her own will and volition; matrimonial dispute, remedy lies elsewhere; Government Advocate office cautioned on communication of orders.

What the court decided

AI extract

Meena Rawat Thru. Husband Monu Rawat Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22547

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 111 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Meena Rawat Thru. Husband Monu Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Sharan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶6

As per Office Report dated 16.04.2025, learned counsel has not

¶7

deposited the requisite amount within stipulated time in terms of the order dated 08.04.2025.

¶8

Shri Shiv Sharan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had informed to the deponent for deposit of the aforesaid amount, however, he neither contacted for deposit of the aforesaid amount nor the said amount has been deposited, therefore, he does not want to press this petition.

¶9

However, in deference to the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by this Court, the detenue is present before this Court, who has been brought by lady constable Sarita Verma and Shri Ravindra Pal Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station-Atariya, DistrictSitapur on some miscommunication made by Office of learned Government Advocate, whereas there was specific direction that after deposit of the aforesaid amount, learned counsel for the petitioner shall inform to learned A.G.A. by 16.04.2025 and only thereafter, learned A.G.A. shall communicate the same to the concerned Station House Officer and the Station House

¶10

Officer shall ensure the presence of the detenue on the next date and also inform to the respondent nos. 4 and 5. The same is not expected from the Office of learned Government Advocate.

¶11

Since the detenue-Meena Rawat and the respondent nos.4 and 5 are present before this Court, who have been identified by the police personnel, who have brought them, therefore, the Court made a query to her as to whether she is married to the deponent, she admitted the marriage. However, she submits that she is residing with the respondent nos.4 and 5 i.e. her father and mother with her will and volition because the deponent used to take liquor and beat her, therefore, at the moment she does not want to go with him unless he improves his behaviour. In view of above, it appears that there is some matrimonial dispute between the detenue and the deponent, for which remedy lies somewhere else. However, since the petition has been not pressed by the petitioner, the petition is dismissed as not pressed.

¶12

Office of learned Government Advocate shall be careful in future in communicating the orders passed by this Court.

¶13

Order Date :- 21.4.2025 Raj

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Meena Rawat Thru. Husband Monu Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Meena Rawat Thru. Husband Monu Rawat v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Kasim Usmani and Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Ritu Yadav Thru. Husband Harshit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. and 4 Others

Vijai Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P.

Sri Chandra Prakash Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thur. S.P. C.B.I. Acb Naval Kishore Road

Ram Baran Vs Sheetla Prasad Yadav and Another

Wasim and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others