Dismissed¶13

Smt Radha Batham and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2025WRIC/10410/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Srivastava, J., 12.09.2025) in WRIT - C No. 10410 of 2024, Smt Radha Batham v. State of UP: petition for mandamus against interference in peaceful marital life dismissed as infructuous; no surviving cause of action; no costs or quantum; decided without contest as petitioners absent even in revised call.

What did the court decide?

No cause of action survives for pressing the writ petition; the prayer relates to an adverse situation that prevailed when the petition was filed in 2024 and has become redundant. ¶13

Smt Radha Batham 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. - 10410 of 2024

¶3

Smt Radha Batham And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Up And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 77

¶8

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶9

Although, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents is present but none appeared on behalf of petitioners even in the revised call.

¶10

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

¶11

At the very outset, learned 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 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.

¶12

Considering the arguments raised by learned 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.

¶13

At present, no cause of action survives for pressing the instant petition preferred at the behest of the petitioners and as such, the petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶14

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶15

September 12, 2025 #Vik/-

¶16

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

Smt Radha Batham and Another v. State of Up and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Radha Batham 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

Ranjana and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

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

Sikander and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Kumar Jain vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt Neha and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Smt Neha @ Sana Parveen and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others