Disposed¶6

Smt Pallavi Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC19 May 2025WRIC/4267/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

peaceful marital life; mandamus against State/police interference; verification of police instructions contrary to petition averments; personal appearance of parties before High Court; Chief Judicial Magistrate Shahjahanpur to enforce appearance; P.S. Kaant; Registrar (Compliance) service within 24 hours; interim directions; WRIT - C No. 4267 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

What did the court decide?

No final relief granted; interim directions only — petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 4 to appear in person before the Court on 29th May, 2025 (appearance to be secured by the CJM, Shahjahanpur through the concerned police station); Registrar (Compliance) to serve the order on the CJM within 24 hours; matter to be put up fresh on 29th May, 2025. ¶6

Smt Pallavi Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction in the nature of mandamus should be issued restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioners' peaceful marital life. +1 more

¶2

Ratio / Principle

The Court directed petitioner nos. 1 and 2, along with respondent no. 4, to appear in person before it on 29th May, 2025, in order to cross-check the disputed factual information.

¶6

Key takeaways

The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur was directed to ensure the personal appearance of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 and respondent no. 4 by executing the order through the concerned police station.ratio¶8
The Registrar (Compliance) was directed to ensure service of the order upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur within a period of 24 hours for necessary compliance.ratio¶9
Passing observation: in matters where instructions are received, the Court ordinarily passes orders on the basis of such instructions without disputing them; in the present matter it opted to cross-check because the information was disputed by counsel for the petitioners.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava, J.), WRIT - C No. 4267 of 2025, order dated 19.5.2025. The petitioners (Smt Pallavi Mishra and another) sought a mandamus directing the State respondents not to interfere with their peaceful marital life. Instructions furnished pursuant to earlier orders through Sub-Inspector Sri Vipin Kumar, Police Station-Kaant, District Shahjahanpur (forwarded by the S.H.O. and the C.O. (City)) were found contrary to the petition's factual averments. Rather than passing orders on the strength of such instructions, the Court directed petitioner nos. 1 and 2 together with respondent no. 4 to appear in person on 29th May, 2025, tasked the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur with securing that appearance through the concerned police station, and required the Registrar (Compliance) to serve the order on the CJM within 24 hours. Interim/procedural order only: no issue was decided on the merits and no precedent was laid down.

¶1

Court No. - 74

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4267 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Pallavi Mishra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Singh,Vishal Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶5

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.

¶6

In pursuance to the earlier orders, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel came up with the instructions received through Sub-Inspector Sri Vipin Kumar, Police Station-Kaant, District Shahjahanpur, which is forwarded by S.H.O., Police Station-Kaant, District Shahjahanpur and C.O. (City), District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

The information which has been submitted through instruction is slight contrary to the averments made in the instant petition on factual grounds.

¶8

In all the matters where the instructions are being received, this Court without disputing the same, used to pass the orders on the basis of instruction so received. Just to cross check through one example which has been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners and to maintain the balance of the information whatsoever has been rendered by learned counsel appearing for both the parties.

¶9

Let the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 along with respondent no. 4 are hereby directed to appear in person before this Court on 29th May, 2025.

¶10

Put up this mater as fresh on 29th May, 2025.

¶11

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur is hereby directed to ensure personal appearance of petitioner nos. 1 and 2 along with respondent no. 4 by way of execution of this order through concerned police station.

¶12

Registrar (Compliance) is hereby directed to ensure service of this order upon learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, within a period of 24 hours for necessary compliance.

¶13

Order Date :- 19.5.2025 #Vik/-

¶14

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

Smt Pallavi Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pallavi Mishra and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Anamjahan and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sanjay Rastogi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahesh Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt Pratibha Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another

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