Dismissed¶14

Aarti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2025WRIC/17397/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Aarti Devi And Another v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others; WRIT - C No. - 17397 of 2024; HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD; HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.; Court No. 77; decided September 12, 2025; writ petition; mandamus; non-interference in peaceful marital life; no cause of action survives; petition redundant; dismissed as infructuous; C.S.C. / Standing Counsel for State-respondents; Adesh Kumar counsel for petitioners; none appeared on revised call.

What did the court decide?

No cause of action survives for pressing the instant petition, which had been preferred against an adverse situation prevailing at the time of filing (2024); accordingly, the petition is dismissed as infructuous. ¶14

Aarti Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 17397 of 2024

¶3

Aarti Devi And Another

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Adesh Kumar .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶8

Court No. - 77

¶9

HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶10

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

¶11

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.

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)

¶16

September 12, 2025 #Vik/-

¶17

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

Aarti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarti Devi and Another v. State of U.P. 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