Meera Awasthi vs State of U.P and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Meera Awasthi vs State of U.P and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions issued: petitioner to communicate certified copy of the Court's order to respondent no. 2; Additional Chief Standing Counsel Amit Manohar to immediately inform respondent no. 2 to look into the lodged case and, within two weeks of the communication, restore the petitioner's and her husband's possession if found dispossessed; petitioner granted liberty to produce the Court's order before the civil Court for it to consider whether children causing distress to their parents have any legal right of protection to remain in their house; issuance of notice to private respondent nos. 3 and 4 expressly not directed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the authority (respondent no. 2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate) should be directed to deal with Case no. RST/22032/2025 (T202503410122032) (Meera Awasthi vs. Ajeet) and come to the petitioner's assistance. +2 more

Court's answer

The Court directed that the petitioner communicate certified copy of its order to respondent no. 2 (the Sub Divisional Magistrate), whom counsel Amit Manohar was in the meantime to immediately inform to look into the lodged case.

Ratio / Principle

Acting on the Additional Chief Standing Counsel's undertaking, given on query, that within two weeks the case would be dealt with and an order made, the Court directed that within two weeks of the communication, if petitioner and her husband are found to have been dispossessed, their possession is restored.

Key takeaways

Petitioner has liberty to produce the Court's order before the civil Court for it to consider whether children who cause distress to their parents have any legal right of protection to remain in their house; as such, the Court did not direct issuance of notice to private respondent nos. 3 and 4.ratio¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ-C No. 44269 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Court No. 39), Bench of Hon'ble Arindam Sinha and Hon'ble Satya Veer Singh, JJ.; disposed of December 16, 2025. Petitioner Meera Awasthi and her husband (proforma respondent no. 5), both parents and senior citizens, alleged distress at the hands of private respondent nos. 3 and 4 (son and daughter-in-law), who, upon being noticed by respondent no. 2 (the Sub Divisional Magistrate), moved the civil Court, obtained an order that they should not be dispossessed, and then dispossessed the petitioner. Petitioner lodged Case no. RST/22032/2025 (T202503410122032), (Meera Awasthi vs. Ajeet), and sought direction that the authority deal with the case and assist her. On Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Amit Manohar undertaking on query that within two weeks the case would be dealt with and order made, the Court directed that petitioner communicate certified copy of the order to respondent no. 2, who was to be immediately informed to look into the case such that, within two weeks of the communication, if petitioner and her husband are found dispossessed, their possession is restored. Petitioner was given liberty to produce the Court's order before the civil Court to consider whether children who cause distress to their parents have any legal right of protection to remain in their house; issuance of notice to private respondents nos. 3 and 4 was expressly not directed. The writ petition was disposed of.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 44269 of 2025

Meera Awasthi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

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

Court No. - 39

HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

Mr. D.K. Singh, learned advocate holding the brief appears on the behalf of petitioner and submits, his client and her husband, proforma respondent no. 5, are both parents and senior citizens. Private respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the son and daughter-in-law. They have caused distress to his client and her husband. Approach was made to respondent no. 2 (the Sub Divisional Magistrate). Private respondents upon being noticed, moved the civil Court and obtained order that they should not be dispossessed. On getting the order, they dispossessed his client. To that end his client lodged Case no. RST/22032/2025 (T202503410122032), (Meera Awasthi vs. Ajeet). He seeks direction upon the authority to deal with the case and come to assistance of his client.

Mr. Amit Manohar, learned advocate Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. On query he submits, within two weeks the case will be dealt with and order made.

Petitioner will communicate certified copy of this order to respondent no. 2. In the meantime Mr. Manohar is to immediately inform said respondent to look into the case such that within two weeks of the communication, if petitioner and her husband are found to have been dispossessed, their possession is restored. Petitioner also has liberty to produce our order before the civil

WRIC No. 44269 of 2025

2

Court for said Court to consider whether, children who cause distress to their parents have any legal right of protection to remain in their house. As such, we are not directing issuance of notice to private respondent nos. 3 and 4.

The writ petition is disposed of.

December 16, 2025 sailesh

(Arindam Sinha,J.)

(Satya Veer Singh,J.)

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