Dismissed¶14

Amirul Thru. Her Friend Narendraa Kumar @ Narendra Kumaar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2025HABC/71/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:19836; Rajnish Kumar J.; unlawful detention; detenue Amirul; major; Aadhar Card DOB 01.03.2003; next friend Narendra Kumar Yadav; live-in relationship agreement legal sanctity; divorce respondent no. 10 Fayyaz Ansari; married deponent; dismissed as not pressed; liberty appropriate remedy; will and volition; P.S. Hardattnagar Shravasti; demand draft Rs. 50,000; police drop detenue safely.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for (to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law); police personnel directed to drop the detenue safely at the place from where she was brought. ¶14

Amirul Thru. Her Friend Narendraa Kumar @ Narendra Kumaar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 12 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the detenue Amirul is in unlawful detention of the respondent nos. 8 to 13. +3 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty as prayed for, enabling the petitioner/deponent to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶14

Key takeaways

Since the detenue is major in age, nobody can keep her in unlawful custody and she can live as per her will and volition.obiter¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 71 of 2025 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.; Order Date 8.4.2025): filed through next friend Narendraa Kumar @ Narendra Kumaar Yadav alleging unlawful detention of the detenue Amirul by respondent nos. 8 to 13. On production in deference to the order dated 7.3.2025, the detenue orally claimed she had been divorced by respondent no. 10 (Fayyaz Ansari) but produced no divorce document; she stated she resided with her father, was unhappy there, and wished to live with the deponent, who is admittedly married with one daughter. She stated she was about 22 years old (petition disclosed 24 years; Aadhar Card date of birth 01.03.2003) and the parties present admitted she was a major. Counsel for private respondents argued that no legal divorce had taken place from either marriage, and that the claimed live-in relationship agreement lacked legal sanctity. Counsel for the petitioner thereafter sought dismissal as not pressed. The court dismissed the petition as not pressed with liberty as prayed for, observed that since the detenue is major nobody can keep her in unlawful custody and she can live as per her will and volition, and directed the escorting police personnel to drop her safely at the place from where she was brought. Counsel handed over to the detenue two demand drafts in her name totalling Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 20,000/- DD No. 082328 dt. 21.03.2025; Rs. 30,000/- DD No. 082440 dt. 02.04.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19836

¶2

Court No. - 11

¶3

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 71 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Amirul Thru. Her Friend Narendraa Kumar @ Narendra Kumaar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 12 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Durgendra Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Mohammad Aziz Mansuri

¶6

Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar,J.

¶7

In deference to the order dated 7.3.2025, the detenue Amirul is present in person who has been brought by Shri Vishal Shukla, Sub Inspector and Ms. Gayatri Yadav, Lady Constable of P.S.Hardattnagar, District- Shravasti. The next friend is also present in person.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she could not deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/- because the two demand drafts were prepared in the name of the detenue, out of which one amounting to Rs. 20,000/- bearing Demand Draft No. 082328 dated 21.03.2025 and another amounting to Rs. 30,000/- bearing Demand Draft No. 082440 dated 02.04.2025. He handed over both the demand drafts to the detenue Amirul.

¶9

On query being put to the detenue, she orally states that she has been divorced by the respondent no. 10. However, on query being put with regard to the legal divorce of the detenue, she failed to submit any such document. She further states that though she is residing with her father, but she is not happy with him. She states that she wants to live with the deponentNarendra Kumar @ Narendra Kumar Yadav, whereas admittedly, he is married and having one daughter. She further states that she is aged about 22 years, whereas her age as per the age disclosed in the petition is 24 years and the date of birth mentioned in the Aadhar Card is 01.03.2003. The parties present also admit that she is major in age.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition has been filed by the deponent as the detenue is in unlawful detention of the respondent nos. 8 to 13. The detenue has admitted that she is not happy with her father. However, she does not dispute that her next friend Narendra Kumar Yadav is married having one daughter. He also on the basis of

¶11

instructions submits that till date, the deponent has not divorced his wife.

¶12

Learned counsel for the private respondents submits that since the next friend Narendra Kumar Yadav is married and being Hindu, he cannot solemnize second marriage without being divorced from his wife. Therefore, the detenue, even though, she may not be happy in the house of her father, cannot be allowed to go with the deponent. Learned counsel for the private respondents also submits that the detenue is married to the respondent no. 10 -Fayyaz Ansari, who has one son out of the said wedlock and till date, divorce has not taken place in accordance with law. He also submits that the deponent is claiming to be in live-in relationship on the basis of an agreement, whereas no such agreement can be executed and it has no legal sanctity.

¶13

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deponent does not want to press this petition and he has sought instructions from the detenue also, therefore, it may be dismissed as such to enable them to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶14

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. However, since the detenue is major in age, it is without saying that nobody can keep her in unlawful custody and she can live as per her will and volition.

¶15

The police personnel, who have brought the detenue, shall drop her at the place from where she has been brought, safely.

¶16

Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Shravan

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Amirul Thru. Her Friend Narendraa Kumar @ Narendra Kumaar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amirul Thru. Her Friend Narendraa Kumar @ Narendra Kumaar Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 12 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

Smt. Deepa Pathak Thru. Her Husband Satya Narayan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Ram Bahadur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Dept. of Home and Another

Sunil Thru. His Wife Smt. Preeti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

M/S Agency House Thru. Its Proprietor Bal Krishna Deora Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Radheyshyam Vaishya and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and 3 Others

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