Sushma and Another vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

The instant habeas corpus writ petition has been filed against respondent nos. 4 and 5, alleging illegal detention of corpus, Sushma, the alleged wife of petitioner no. 2 Kapil Kumar, by them. Petitioner no. 1 (corpus) and petitioner No. 2 got married at some Arya Samaj Mandir (Trust), 71-72, IInd Floor, Gokhale Market, Behind Tis Hazari Court, Opposite Gate No. 4, Near Telephone Exchange, Delhi-110054.

¶10

A certificate, as proof of marriage, has been issued regarding solemnization of marriage between, one Kapil Kumar and Sushma, both residents of district-Amroha. The said marriage was allegedly solemnized on 12.12.2025 and thereafter the said marriage was registered on 15.12.2025 in the office of Marriage Officer, Kotwali, District Central at 14, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. The said certificate has been digitally signed by Sri Alok Kumar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The number of said certificate is printed as 90730000238085. It is a matter of record that both the petitioners (herein) are residents of district Amroha, State of U. P., under the circumstances, Divisional Commissioner, having jurisdiction over Central District, Delhi, shall submit a report on the following points:-

¶11

(i) whether the said Trust is duly registered and is in existence on the aforesaid address, i. e. Arya Samaj Mandir (Trust), 71-72, IInd Floor, Gokhale Market, Behind Tis Hazari Court, Opposite Gate No. 4, Near Telephone Exchange, Delhi-110054 and is also having a temple for the purpose;

¶12

(ii) if the said application was moved by the parties, then on consideration of

¶13

HABC No. 23 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

the application, the marriage certificate was issued there and then;

¶16

(iii) whether any enquiry was conducted regarding the genuineness, identification of the parties and their place of residence in Delhi or district Amroha and due procedure was followed, while issuing marriage certificate to the persons, those were not residents of Delhi, but the residents of district Amroha;

¶17

(iv) It may also be clarified, whether any person residing anywhere in the territory of any State of the Republic, may obtain a certificate from Delhi, without verifying the antecedents or the place of residence of the parties. The Divisional Commissioner may, so appoint any officer, not below the rank of Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate to conduct the said enquiry and its report, may thereafter reach to this Court within four weeks.

¶18

List on 19.2.2026, as fresh.

¶19

It is made clear that, no interim order, whatsoever, has been passed in the instant petition.

¶20

Registrar (Compliance), High Court, Allahabad is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar General, Delhi High Court for ensuring compliance from the office of Divisional Commissioner, Delhi.

¶21

January 14, 2026 HR

¶22

(Harvir Singh,J)

¶23

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sushma and Another v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma and Another v. the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Meghshyam vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

Smt Ankita Sharma (Corpus) and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mahak D/O Ravi @ Banti vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Sonu Kumar and 2 Others

Meghshyam vs State of U.P. and 8 Others

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs Ramchandrapal Singh and 5 Others