Mrs. Maya and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

2. Upon a query being raised by this Court, the corpus stated that she has solemnized marriage with one Saif in a temple according to Hindu customs and rites. However, when the Court further inquired about the details of the alleged marriage, including the identity and particulars of the husband's family members such as the mother-in-law and other relatives, as well as any documentary evidence or other material substantiating the said marriage, the corpus failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation and remained silent.

¶14

3. During the course of interaction, this Court also found that the corpus was unable to disclose relevant particulars regarding her matrimonial home or the circumstances under which the alleged marriage was solemnized. In the absence of any supporting material or satisfactory response from the corpus, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter requires further verification and careful examination.

¶15

HABC No. 146 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and keeping in view the safety, security and welfare of the corpus, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that the corpus be sent to Naari Niketan, Khuldabad, Prayagraj for a period of one week, so that she may remain in a safe and protected environment until the next date of hearing.

¶18

5. On the next date fixed for hearing, the parents of the corpus (natural guardians), the alleged husband (respondent no. 4), as well as the in-laws of the corpus, shall remain personally present before this Court. They shall also produce any documentary evidence or other material, if available, in support of the alleged marriage, so as to enable this Court to ascertain the true factual position.

¶19

6. Put up this matter on 18.03.2026 as fresh."

¶20

Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the corpus, her alleged husband (respondent No.4) and the mother and brother of the corpus are personally present before this Court in compliance with the aforesaid order dated 11.3.2026.

¶21

On query by this Court, the corpus has refused to join her mother and brother and also to stay at parental home, whereas, the alleged husband has failed to file any documentary evidence of marriage, that has purportedly taken place in a temple.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even if any marriage has allegedly been solemnised, the said marriage is void ab initio , as the religion of the corpus and the alleged husband (respondent No.4) are different, therefore, the marriage cannot be solemnised in a temple, unless both the parties are being converted either one way or the other and seek permission from competent authority. Hence, if any marriage, whatsoever, as stated to be solemniosed, the same is void ab initio and cannot be considered as a marriage in the eyes of law. Secondly, even if the marriage has been solemnised in accordance with customs and rites of a particular religion, then the said marriage ought to have been solemnised in the same manner, if the parties belongs to the same religion. Moreover, the corpus is a minor, as on date, and therefore, either her custody can be given to her parents or she can be left at Nari Niketan, till it is proved that the corpus has attained the

¶23

HABC No. 146 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

age of majority in near future.

¶26

Under such circumstances, the corpus shall continue to stay at Nari Niketan, where she is staying presently, till it is proved that she has attained the age of majority, thereafter, the consequences would follow. However, it is made clear that, as on date, the marriage, whatsoever, has been solemnised between the parties. The said marriage does not appear to be a lawful marriage, being stated in the absence of any documentary evidence.

¶27

The instant petition stands disposed of.

¶28

March 18, 2026 Gurpreet Singh

¶29

(Harvir Singh,J.)

¶30

Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mrs. Maya and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Maya 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

Urmila and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Nikhil Alias Nikki vs State of U.P.

Indrajeet vs State of U.P.

Aakash Alias Allu vs State of U.P.

Ramzan vs State of U.P.

Nakul vs State of U.P. through Its Principal Secretary (Home) at Lucknow, U.P.