JUDGMENT 1. - This special appeal arises out of the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.05.2014. It is reported to be time barred by 4 days. 2. After hearing the parties, appearing in person, we are of the view that delay has been sufficiently explained. The delay is condoned and accordingly the delay condonation application is allowed. 3. By the impugned order dated 19.05.2014, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition and the stay application with directions to the Station House Officer, Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur (South), and the Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur, to ensure necessary vigil; access threat perception to the life of the newly married couple, and also to ensure that no harm is caused to the life and liberty of the petitioners. 4. Learned Single Judge has observed that the petition was filed on behalf of the newly married couple, apprehending danger to their life and liberty at the hands of those, who are opposed to the marriage. The couple had presented themselves before the Court. He has observed in the order as follows:- "Swati Tailor Nee Swati Tank, petitioner No.1, has been identified by her counsel Shri KN Sharma. She has stated that she is aged about twenty three years and she had married petitioner No.2; Anil Kumar Tailor according to her own free will and accord. Swati Tailor has further stated that she is Bachelor in Arts and she is living happily with petitioner No.2 as a wife. Without determining the validity of the marriage and age of the petitioner No.1, this Court is of the view that nobody can be permitted to take law into his own hands." 5. The appellant is the father of girl(Ms. Swati Tailor). He states that Shri Anil Kumar Tailor (petitioner No.2), respondent No.5 before us, an Advocate by profession, was earlier married to his wife's sister (maternal uncle's daughter). They had no knowledge that he was having an affair with their daughter. When their daughter suddenly disappeared and was not traceable, despite making frantic search, they approached the police to lodge a First Information Report. The report was registered after great persuasion, registering a criminal case, in which the statement of their daughter was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. When their daughter suddenly disappeared and was not traceable, despite making frantic search, they approached the police to lodge a First Information Report. The report was registered after great persuasion, registering a criminal case, in which the statement of their daughter was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. 6. It is stated by the appellant that Shri Anil Kumar Tailor, married to Smt. Harsh Lata, sister of his wife, is related to them. He enticed away their daughter on false assurances of a happy life whereas he was married with two children. He did not disclose full and detailed facts in the writ petition filed before this Court and obtained ex parte orders against them. It is not known to them that Shri Anil Kumar Tailor had divorced Smt. Harsh Lata. These facts were not disclosed by Shri Anil Kumar Tailor. It is alleged that if these facts were disclosed the Hon'ble Court may not have exercised its discretion in favour of petitioners and in any case the Court would not have decided the writ petition ex-parte without notice to the appellant. It is also submitted that the appellant apprehend that their daughter's life living with a married man, who has taken advantage of his dominance over her, will be full of miseries. They have a right to give reply and to persuade the Court not to decide the case unless full and detailed facts are brought before it. 7. On a question put to Shri Anil Kumar Tailor as to why his relationship with the father and mother of the girl was not disclosed, and further as to why he had not disclosed the fact of his earlier marriage with Smt. Harsh Lata, and the proceedings for divorce, in the pleadings of the writ petition, he informs the Court that he had disclosed the facts to his Counsel, but on the discretion exercised by him, his Counsel did not state these facts in the writ petition. 8. We are of the view that in a case like this, the petitioners should have come to the Court with clean hands giving full and detailed facts both, regarding their relationship and the fact that the petitioner No.2, Anil Kumar Tailor (respondent No.5 herein) had obtained divorce from Smt. Harsh Lata, who is the aunt of petitioner No.1, Swati Tailor (respondent No.4 herein). Any order obtained by withholding full facts, even if such facts are not considered by the Court to be relevant for deciding the case, will fall within the meaning of misrepresentation and fraud played by the parties with the Court. It is for the Court to decide if such facts are relevant. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.05.2014 is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide it in accordance with law. Now since the fact of earlier relationship of the petitioners No. 1 and 2 is admitted to petitioner No.2, he will place on record full and detailed facts with regard to his first marriage with Smt. Harsh Lata; the children born to them, and the proceedings for divorce. He will implead Smt. Harsh Lata as party to the proceedings and bring all the orders and decree relating to his earlier marriage on record of the writ petition. He will also place on record the criminal proceedings drawn by the appellant in the matter. 10. Let the writ petition be listed before the learned Single Judge on 16.09.2014, to be heard and decided at an early date. The order has been passed in presence of the parties and thus, no notice is required to be given to them for the date fixed in the matter.Appeal Allowed. *******