Dismissed¶13

Ravi Kumar Chaurasia and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2025HABC/184/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court habeas corpus writ petition dismissed with Rs.25,000/- cost for false and frivolous averments; wife produced by Delhi Police denied enticement by Respondent No.5 Mohit Tomar; petitioner never contacted police; wife left free to choose residence with minor child; cost recoverable as arrears of land revenue via District Magistrate, Prayagraj; Vinod Diwakar, J.; decided 8.4.2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioners; writ petition dismissed and cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed on Petitioner No.1, to be deposited within thirty days with the High Court Legal Services Authority, failing which recoverable by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj as arrears of land revenue. ¶13

Ravi Kumar Chaurasia and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the habeas corpus writ petition seeking recovery of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 (wife and minor son) allegedly enticed by Respondent No.5 was founded on truthful averments. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The instant writ petition was filed with false and frivolous averments and deserved to be dismissed with cost.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition, being misconceived, was dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by Petitioner No.1 within thirty days with the High Court Legal Services Authority; on failure to deposit, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj may recover the amount as arrears of land revenue.

¶13

Key takeaways

Petitioner No.2, being a major aged 26 years, was left free to take her own decision whether to go with her husband or to any other place she wants, with her minor children.ratio¶14
Personal appearances of Mohit Tomar (Respondent No.5), Petitioner No.2-Soni and Krishna (minor) were exempted unless specifically called in some other case.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 184 of 2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:50999), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 76, Vinod Diwakar, J., order dated 8.4.2025. Ravi Kumar Chaurasia (Petitioner No.1) sought recovery of his wife Soni (Petitioner No.2) and minor son Krishna (Petitioner No.3), alleging Mohit Tomar (Respondent No.5) had enticed the wife; a complaint had been sent by registered post on 03.02.2025. Learned AGA submitted the postal receipt bore no date and the petitioner never approached the police. Produced before the Court by the Delhi Police, Petitioner No.2 stated she married Petitioner No.1 on 16.09.2018 (registered 17.09.2018), lived in Ahmadabad, suffered routine cruelty, ultimately left him, and denied being enticed or taken away by Respondent No.5. Holding the averments false and frivolous, the Court dismissed the misconceived writ petition with cost of Rs.25,000/- payable by Petitioner No.1 to the High Court Legal Services Authority within thirty days, failing which recoverable by the District Magistrate, Prayagraj as arrears of land revenue; left Petitioner No.2 (major, aged 26) free to decide whether to go with her husband or elsewhere with her minor children; and exempted further personal appearances unless specifically called.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50999

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 184 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Chaurasia And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

In compliance of order dated 06.03.2025, Mohit TomarRespondent No.5, Petitioner No.2-Soni wife of Ravi Kumar (Petitioner No.1) and Krishna (Minor) son of Soni, are present before this Court, who have been identified by their respective counsels.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed with the averments that the Petitioner No.2 is the legally wedded wife of Petitioner No.1 and a child aged 5 years was born from the said wedlock. The Petitioner No.2 left Prayagraj in January, 2025 and when the Petitioner No.1 came to know about this fact, has filed a complaint through registered post on 03.02.2025 and after sending the complaint through registered post, the Petitioner No.1 preferred the instant writ petition for recovery of Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 by making allegations against Mohit Tomar-respondent no.5, who stated to have enticed the Petitioner's wife.

¶9

Learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents submits that there is no date on the postal receipt from which it could be gathered that the complaint was ever made to the police. The

¶10

Petitioner No.1 has never visited the police station nor contacted to the police for recovery of his wife and children.

¶11

Smt. Soni wife of Petitioner No.1 has been produced by the Delhi Police before this Court. She stated that she entered into marriage with Petitioner No.1 on 16.09.2018 and thereafter their marriage was registered with the Marriage Registration Officer on 17.09.2018. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 started living in Ahmadabad soon after their marriage and Petitioner No.1 started perpetuating cruelty upon her in a routine manner. A child was also born out, left with no other option except to decide to live at the matrimonial home, the Petitioner No.2 left the company of Petitioner No.1. She further stated that neither she was enticed nor taken away by the Respondent No.5. She was brought by the Delhi Police from the Ahmadabad and produced before this Court today.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances and the statement of the Petitioner No.2, this Court is of the opinion that the instant writ petition has been filed with false and frivolous averments, which deserves to be dismissed with cost.

¶13

Accordingly, the writ petition being misconceived is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the Petitioner No.1 within thirty days from today with the High Court Legal Services Authority. In case the petitioner failed to deposit the said amount, the District Magistrate, Prayagraj is at liberty to recover the said amount as arrears land revenue.

¶14

Since, the Petitioner No.2-Soni is major aged 26 years, the Court leave it open to the petitioner no.2 to take her own decision either to go with her husband or any other place where she wants to go with her minor children.

¶15

The personal appearance of Mohit Tomar-Respondent No.5, Petitioner No.2-Soni wife of Ravi Kumar (Petitioner No.1) and Krishna (Minor) son of Soni, is exempted unless otherwise specifically called in some other case.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Prajapati

¶17

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Kumar Chaurasia and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Kumar Chaurasia and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sandeep Chechi vs State of U.P. and Another

Kumari Roshani Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Subhadra Nand Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Sandhya Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another