Vandana Sharma Law Graduate and Another vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

The petitioners in this case are husband and wife. The petitioner no.1 is the wife of the petitioner no.2. She is a Law Graduate. The petitioner no.2 is a practising Advocate and has been enrolled with the Bar Council since 2005. The petitioner no.2 has argued in person on behalf of both the petitioners.

¶10

The petitioner no.2 submits that the petition has been filed for protection of the rights of the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners are residing in their ancestral house bearing no.128/208, K-Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur Nagar since 11.08.2023. The house where they are staying is stated to be registered in the name of one Late Janki Prasad Sharma, the grand-father of the petitioner no.2 and just not a self-acquired property by the respondent no.2.

¶11

The petitioner no.2 has argued that he has a share in the aforementioned property but the petitioners were forcibly evicted on 27.9.2017 by the father-in-law and step-mother-in-law of the petitioner no.1, who were also Advocates. Due to the conflict and differences with other family members, the petitioners took the assistance of the police on 27.9.2017 by dialling the helpline for women assistance. It is also averred in the petition that the opposite parties i.e. father-in-law and step-motherin-law of the petitioner no.1 are both Advocates practising before the District Court at Kanpur Nagar in U.P.

¶12

The petitioner no.1 has filed a complaint case bearing no. 6660 of 2018, under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act which is pending

¶13

WRIC No. 1089 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

against the respondents no. 2 and 3. It is also averred that the petitioners have filed an Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 10642 of 2020 for providing police protection to the petitioner no.1 in the matrimonial home during the Corona Lockdown period.

¶16

On 26.11.2020 the Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was heard by this Court in physical hearing and directions were passed to the petitioners no. 1 and 2 to approach the mediating agency at District Kanpur Nagar. With these observations, the Application Under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed as withdrawn.

¶17

There are several instances like what has already been mentioned herein above between the petitioners and the respondents in this case. They are all related to each other and the significant aspect of this case is that every one is an Advocate, the petitioner no.1 is a Law Graduate, petitioner no.2 is an Advocate, respondents 2 to 5 are all Advocates and they are related to the petitioners.

¶18

Upon being asked as to how this Court would have in jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in a matter relating to issues between blood relations without there being any involvement or act on the part of the State which has infringed either a fundamental right of the petitioners or statutory right, the petitioner no.2, argued that the case involved Article 21 of the Constitution of India as the lives of the petitioner's were in danger, and therefore, the Court should intervene.

¶19

This Court is unable to agree with the contention put forth by the petitioner no.2. If the same be allowed, it would open a floodgate whereby at each and every incident between private parties would approach the Court invoking violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶20

From the sum totality of the circumstances and the material on the record, it appears that the relief that the petitioners seek may be before the Civil Court and not in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶21

Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed.

¶22

(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)

¶23

January 16, 2026

¶24

piyush

¶25

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vandana Sharma Law Graduate and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vandana Sharma Law Graduate and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shashi Prabha Goel and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Kumar Industries vs the Reserve Bank of India and 4 Others

Dilawal Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Ram Pasi vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vandana Babbar and Another vs Central Bank of India, through Its Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar Branch

Smt. Geeta Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and 5 Others