Dismissed¶15

Ranjana and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2025WRIC/10249/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court writ petition (WRIT - C No. 10249 of 2024) by Ranjana and another seeking protection/non-interference in a live-in relationship; dismissed as infructuous on 11.09.2025 by Saurabh Srivastava, J. on the ground that no cause of action survived, the prayer having become redundant; decided without contest as petitioners did not appear even on revised call; no statute or precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

No cause of action survives for pressing the instant writ petition. ¶12

Ranjana and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 10249 of 2024

¶3

Ranjana And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Adarsh Srivastava, Reena Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶6

Court No. - 77

¶7

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶8

Although, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for Staterespondents is present, none appeared on behalf of petitioners even in the revised call.

¶9

By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful live in relationship of petitioners, has been sought.

¶10

At the very outset, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel sought the attention of the court over the documents appended for substantiating the prayer as made in the petition but at the same time, it is also intimated by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that the instant petition has been preferred in the year 2024 and at present, no cause of action is surviving and as such, the prayer made in the petition has become redundant.

¶11

Considering the arguments raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, it is crystal clear that the instant matter has been preferred at the behest of petitioners for prayer mentioned herein but the same was perpetuating against the adverse situation available before petitioners in the year and time when the instant petition has been filed.

¶12

At present, no cause of action survives for pressing the instant petition

¶13

WRIC No. 10249 of 2024

¶14

¶15

preferred at the behest of the petitioners and as such, the petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶16

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶17

September 11, 2025

¶18

#Vik/-

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ranjana and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjana and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Pooja Rani and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kashish and Another vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Khusabu and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Asif and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Devnarayan and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Subhash Chandra and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another