Sumit Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sumit Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Personal appearance of Petitioner No.2-Sakshi, Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar and Respondent No.4-Vijendra Kumar exempted unless otherwise specifically called for in some other case.

Issue for consideration

Whether Petitioner No.2-Sakshi is illegally detained by Respondent No.4-Vijendra Kumar (her father) at her parental house, so as to warrant issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in favour of Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar.

Court's answer

Petitioner No.2-Sakshi is not illegally detained: stating before the Court in person, she said that soon after the marriage Petitioner No.1 treated her with cruelty and she therefore refused to go with him.

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.4-Vijendra Kumar does not illegally detain Petitioner No.2; his daughter is living with him without any pressure or coercion.

Key takeaways

No case for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus or any direction in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution having been made out, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar within thirty days with the District Legal Services Authority, Muzaffar Nagar, failing which the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar is to recover it from him as arrears of land revenue.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HABEAS CORPUS AGAINST FATHER-IN-LAW DISMISSED WITH COSTS — Petitioner No.1 (husband) alleged that Respondent No.4, father of Petitioner No.2 (his wife), had taken her back to the parental house and was illegally detaining her. On personal appearance pursuant to order dated 24.03.2025, Petitioner No.2 told the Court that soon after the marriage Petitioner No.1 treated her with cruelty and she had refused to go with him; Respondent No.4 stated that his daughter was living with him without any pressure or coercion. Held: Petitioner No.2 is not illegally detained; no case for a writ of habeas corpus or any direction in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. Writ petition dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by Petitioner No.1 with the District Legal Services Authority, Muzaffar Nagar within thirty days, failing which recoverable from him as arrears of land revenue. Personal appearance of the parties exempted unless otherwise specifically called for.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51080

Court No. - 76

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 202 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sumit Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

In compliance of the order dated 24.03.2025, Petitioner No.2Sakshi, Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar and Respondent No.4Vijendra Kumar, are present in person, who have been identified by their respective counsels.

Shri Prem Narayan Singh, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of Respondent No.4, the same is taken on record.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the Petitioner No.1 solemnized his marriage with Petitioner No.2 and thereafter the Respondent No.4-father of Petitioner No.2 came to the house of Petitioner No.1 and took her daughter (Petitioner No.2) back and since then the Petitioner No.2-Sakshi is residing at her parental house.

The Petitioner No.2 stated before the Court that soon after the marriage the Petitioner No.1 started treating the Petitioner No.2 with cruelty and therefore, she has refused to go with Petitioner No.1, hence, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner No.2 is illegally detained.

Shri Vijendra Kumar, the father of Petitioner No.2 has also stated before the Court that his daughter is living with him without any pressure or coercion, therefore, it cannot be said that he illegally detained the Petitioner No.2.

Learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits that since the Petitioner No.2 is living at her parental house with her own sweet will, no case for issuing any direction in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is made out. Prima-facie, the Petitioner No.1 has failed to make out a case for issuing writ in the nature of habeas corpus and has also spent the precious time of the Court, therefore, the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar, within a period of thirty days from today with the District Legal Services Authority, Muzaffar Nagar, failing which, the District Magistrate, Muzaffar Nagar is directed to recover the said amount from the Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar, as arrears of land revenue.

The personal appearance of Petitioner No.2-Sakshi, Petitioner No.1-Sumit Kumar and Respondent No.4-Vijendra Kumar, is exempted unless otherwise specifically called for in some other case.

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Prajapati

Justice Vinod Diwakar

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