Arpita Singh Nee Arpita Jaiswal Thru. Her Husband Anshul Raj vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the opposite party No. 2 and 3 to produce the corpus of the detenue petitioner before the Hon'ble Court on date fixed by it, and after recording her statement she may be released from the illegal confinement of opposite party No. 4 and may further be allowed to go with her husband and lead happy married life."

¶15

4. On 17.02.2026, following order was passed:-

¶16

2

¶17

HABC No. - 31 of 2026

¶18

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶19

2. On 04.02.2026, the following order was passed :-

¶20

"1. Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Prashansha Singh, Advocate & Ms. Pratibha Singh, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no.4 is taken on record.

¶21

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party no.4.

¶22

3. On 30.1.2026, following order was passed :-

¶23

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶24

2. The present petition is filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the opposite party no.2 and 3 to produce the corpus of the detenue petitioner before the Hon'ble Court on the date fixed by it, and after recording her statement she may be released from the illegal confinement of opposite party no.4 and may further be allowed to go with her husband and lead happy married life.

¶25

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that deponent and detenue were in friendship, as a result, detenue joined the company of the deponent and thereafter, they entered into marriage and same was registered before the Marriage Registrar on 23.1.2026. He further submits that on 24.1.2026 at about 12:30 noon, aunt (bua) of the detenue came to the house of the deponent alongwith a constable and forcefully taken away the detenue. He also submits that private respondent has settled the marriage of the detenue with one Harshit Tomar, who is police constable on 8.2.2026 against wishes of the detenue, therefore, indulgence of this Court is necessary. 4. Learned A.G.A. placed written instructions duly signed by Mr. Ram Murti Kannaujia, S.I., Police Station Inayat Nagar, District - Ayodhya and informs that inquiry was conducted, in which, detenue categorically admitted the marriage and also stated that she is residing with her parents on her free will.'

¶26

5. List this case on 4.2.2026.

¶27

6. The S.H.O., Police Station Inayat Nagar, Ayodhya is directed to produce the detenue before this Court and also inform to the respondent no.4 about the next date of listing.

¶28

7. The deponent is further directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- before the Senior Registrar of this Court within three days.

¶29

8. In case, aforesaid amount is not deposited, the detenue need not to produce before this Court.

¶30

4. In pursuance of aforesaid order, detenue is present alongwith Mr. Ram Murti Kannaujia, Sub Inspector & Ms. Monika Gupta, Lady Constable, Police Station - Inayat Nagar, District - Ayodhya.

¶31

5. The detenue categorically stated before this Court that she is major and doing M.Sc. in Zoology, her marriage was solemnized with Anshul Raj and presently she is residing with her parents and coming before this Court from

¶32

3

¶33

HABC No. - 31 of 2026

¶34

her house. She also stated that certain testimonials as well as some articles are also lying with the deponent.

¶35

6. The deponent also accepted the fact that certain testimonials and articles of the detenue are lying with him and on the next date, he will hand over the same to the detenue.

¶36

7. List this case on 17.2.2026.

¶37

8. On the next date, deponent as well as detenue shall again appear before this Court.

¶38

9. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the deponent before the Senior Registrar of this Court be handed over to the detenue, forthwith.

¶39

10. Officers present today, need not to appear until further order. "

¶40

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, all the testimonials and articles of the detenue have been handed over to her by the deponent. Learned counsel for deponent informs that on 24.01.2026, cousin brother of the detenue namely, Satyam Singh who is a Constable visited the house of deponent along with another Constable and forcibly took away the laptop bag, mobile phone along with charger. The laptop bag, mobile phone and charger have not been handed over by the cousin brother of the detenue namely, Satyam Singh, who is a Constable.

¶41

4. Today, the detenue admitted that she has is having the mobile charger of the deponent and same is handed over to him. The detenue also stated that she is residing with her parents on her own will.

¶42

5. Put up this case on 23.02.2026 at 11:30 a.m..

¶43

6. On the next date, the cousin brother of detenue Satyam Singh, shall appear before this Court along with laptop bag as well as mobile phone of the deponent.

¶44

7. On the next date the deponent as well as detenue and the private respondent shall also appear before this Court."

¶45

5. In pursuance of aforesaid order, Satyam Singh, cousin brother of the detenue, is present today. The laptop bag as well as mobile phone of the deponent has been returned.

¶46

The detenue and the deponent are also present.

¶47

6. The detenue has filed supplementary affidavit annexing therein settlement agreement arrived between

¶48

4

¶49

HABC No. - 31 of 2026

¶50

the parties on 23.02.2026. Contents of the settlement agreement are as under:-

¶51

5

¶52

HABC No. - 31 of 2026

¶53

6

¶54

HABC No. - 31 of 2026

¶55

7. The deponent and the detenue have categorically stated that they were in close association and they have entered into marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, thereafter, the marriage registration certificate was issued in Application I.D. No. 202614000486 and the marriage was registered on 23.01.2026 at 02:47:55 pm at serial no. 251 at SRO Office, Sadar Fifth, District- Ghaziabad.

¶56

The victim has admitted that she went to the house of her parents and residing with them on her own free will.

¶57

8. On personal interaction with the deponent and the detenue, they have stated that they do not want any further litigation and to give a quietus all the disputes to be settled full and finally.

¶58

9. The parties have admitted that saptpadi was not performed as per Hindu rituals. Both the parties have agreed that the marriage certificate dated 23.01.2026 (supra) may be declared null and void. The parties have undertaken that neither they nor their family members will institute any civil or criminal proceedings against Arpita Singh d/o Raj Pratap Singh Singh r/o Pandri, Chandpur Naghara, Rurukhas, District- Ayodhya and Anshul Raj s/o Raj Kumar r/o House No. 337/11, Tiliya Cot., Raebareli.

¶59

10. Learned A.G.A. has no objection, in case, the marriage certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Mandir dated 22.01.2026 and marriage certificate dated 23.01.2026 issued by the Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad are quashed.

¶60

7

¶61

HABC No. - 31 of 2026

¶62

11. In view of the settlement, no dispute remains pending between the parties. The parties are agreed that the marriage can be declared as null and void. Therefore, the marriage certificate dated 22.01.2026 issued by Naitik Vaidik Sanskar Samiti, Gandhi Nagar, Ghaziabad on account of marriage of Arpita Singh and Anshul Raj and the marriage registration certificate dated 23.01.2026 issued by Marriage Registration Officer, Ghaziabad in Application ID No. 202614000486 are hereby declared null and void and accordingly the same are quashed .

¶63

12. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of .

¶64

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶65

February 23, 2026 Arpan

¶66

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arpita Singh Nee Arpita Jaiswal Thru. Her Husband Anshul Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arpita Singh Nee Arpita Jaiswal Thru. Her Husband Anshul Raj v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. 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

Shyam @ Shyamu and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Saroj Kumar and 5 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance New Delhi and 4 Others

Arvind Kumar Srivas and 7 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy./Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agriculture Education/ Research and 7 Others

Pragati Chaudhary and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Education Deptt., Lko. and 4 Others

Shaurya Mishra Thru. His Father Deepak Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 4 Others