Dismissed¶11

Seema Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Mar 2025WRIC/43692/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

live-in relationship; writ for police protection dismissed; Article 226 mandamus requires an infringed legal right; petitioner already married to another person, no decree of divorce; Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. (Writ C-18743 of 2020) cited by Standing Counsel; Seema Kumari v. State of U.P.; Allahabad High Court; Justice Vinod Diwakar; WRIT-C No. 43692 of 2024; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:35178; order dated 10.3.2025.

What did the court decide?

None - petition dismissed; no direction to the police for protection of the petitioners was issued. ¶11

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - petition dismissed; no direction to the police for protection of the petitioners was issued.

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, living in a live-in relationship against the wishes of their respective parents and apprehending a threat to their lives from them, are entitled to a writ under Article 226 directing the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The instant petition seeking police protection was devoid of merits and was dismissed; no direction for protection of the petitioners' lives was granted.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Since petitioner no.1-Seema Kumari is already married to respondent no.4-Ravi Shankar (2017) and has not obtained a decree of divorce from a competent Court, she has no legal right to live in a live-in relationship with petitioner no.2; consequently, no writ under Article 226 is issued in the petitioners' favour.

¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT-C No. 43692 of 2024, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Vinod Diwakar J.) filed by Seema Kumari and another, who were living in a live-in relationship as husband and wife against the wishes of their respective parents and apprehended a threat to their lives from them, sought a direction to the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives. The learned Standing Counsel (Shri Nishant Singh) submitted, citing the Division Bench ruling in Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (Writ C-18743 of 2020), that a mandamus under Article 226 can issue only where the aggrieved person has a legal right that has been infringed. The Court held that petitioner no.1, being already married to respondent no.4-Ravi Shankar in 2017 and having obtained no decree of divorce, had no legal right to live in a live-in relationship with petitioner no.2; accordingly, no writ under Article 226 was issued in their favour and the petition, being devoid of merits, was dismissed (Order Date 10.3.2025).

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35178

¶2

Court No. - 76

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43692 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Seema Kumari And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidit Narayan Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.

¶6

The instructions, handed over by the learned Standing Counsel, in Court today, is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Nishant Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and perused the material on record.

¶8

The petitioners' case is that the petitioner no.1-Seema Kumari is living in live-in-relationship with petitioner no. 2 as husband and wife against the wishes of their respective parents as well, therefore, apprehend threat to their lives by them. In the given background, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for seeking direction to the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives.

¶9

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondents submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (Writ C-18743 of 2020) held and reiterated the settled law by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments about issuing a mandamus under Article 226, the Court must determine that the aggrieved person has a legal right that has been infringed. A mandamus is a command directing a person, corporation, inferior Court, or government to

¶10

perform a specified public duty. It is issued against public authorities, administrative bodies, or anyone with a statutory or common law duty. The applicant must prove a legal right to the performance of this duty at the time of the petition.

¶11

Admittedly, the petitioner no.1-Seema Kumari is already married to respondent no.4-Ravi Shankar in the year 2017, therefore, without obtaining a decree of divorce from the competent Court, she has no legal right to live live-in-relationship with petitioner no.2 and as such no writ under Article 226 is issued in their favour. The instant petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶12

Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Prajapati

¶13

Justice Vinod Diwakar

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Seema Kumari and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seema Kumari 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases