Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2963 (ALL)

Manoj Kumar Sonkar v. State of U. P.

2015-09-17

VIPIN SINHA

body2015
JUDGMENT Vipin Sinha, J. Sri Daya Shanker, learned counsel for the respondent has filed a counter affidavit of Smt. Hemlata Sonker, who has been arrayed as petitioner no. 2. the same is taken on record. 2. In paragraph nos. 4, 6, 9, 12 & 13 of the said counter affidavit, Smt. Hemlata Sonker, who is said to be illegally detained, herself submits as under: "4) That the contents of para no. 3 of the writ petition is false, hence denied. It is further stated that petitioner no. 2 has filed Case No. 03 of 2014, U/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as Case No. 96 of 2014 U/s 12 of Domestic Violence Act before the concerned courts, thereafter concerned petitioner has appeared before the concerned court. 6) That the contents of para no. 6 of the writ petition is false, incorrect, hence denied. In reply thereto it is stated that concerned petitioners are beating to the petitioner no. 2,3 & 4 and forcibly ousted their house, thereafter concerned petitioner no. 2 along with her children have gone to their parental house i.e. house of respondent no. 4. 9) That the contents of para no. 10, 11 & 12 of the writ petition is false, incorrect, hence denied. In reply thereto it is stated that petitioner no. 1 is giving forged application before the authority concerned and only for harassing to the petitioners nos. 2,3 & 4 as well as respondent no. 4. 12) That the contents of para no. 16, 17 & 18 of the writ petition is false, incorrect, hence denied, it is formal para and further stated that petitioner no. 1 has not adopted proper proceedings and only for harassment to the respondent no. 4 and his daughter (petitioner no. 2 along with children) filed the present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court, which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 13) That the petitioner no. 1 is very cunning person and he is regularly to harass the petitioner no. 2,3 & 4 as well as respondent no. 4, who is father of the petitioner no. 2 and the present petition has been filed before this Hon'ble Court only for misleading to the Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Court direct to the petitioner no. 1 to pay the expenses and other allowance to the petitioners no. 2,3 & 4 along with her father i.e. respondent no. 4, who is father of the petitioner no. 2 and the present petition has been filed before this Hon'ble Court only for misleading to the Hon'ble Court and Hon'ble Court direct to the petitioner no. 1 to pay the expenses and other allowance to the petitioners no. 2,3 & 4 along with her father i.e. respondent no. 4." 3. In view of the aforesaid averments as made in the said counter affidavit, no cause of action survives as far as the present habeas corpus writ petition is concerned. 4. Accordingly, the present habeas corpus writ petition is dismissed.