Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3476 (ALL)

KUSUM YADAV v. STATE OF U. P.

2015-11-04

PANKAJ MITHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India by two petitioners claiming protection to their married life on the ground that they are both majors and have married of their own free will, but their life is being disturbed by the respondents. 2. On the first date when the petition was taken up, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions received by him had informed the Court that a First Information Report/N.C.R. has been lodged against petitioner No. 2 under Section 498 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners was accordingly directed to file an affidavit of the petitioner No. 2 clarifying his marital status at the time of the alleged marriage with the petitioner No. 1. 4. Accordingly, affidavit of petitioner No. 2 was filed stating he had married petitioner No. 1 and he was not married to any one earlier. 5. Sri Kaushlendra Kumar, learned counsel who had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 5, had stated that the petitioner No. 1 is in illegal detention of petitioner No. 2. She had not married him. The petitioner No. 1 had forced her to sign the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 6. In view of the above allegations made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, petitioner No. 1 was directed to be produced before the Court. 7. The petitioner No. 1 is present in Court. She has been identified by counsel for respondent No. 5, who is representing the father of the petitioner No. 1. Her identity is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. 8. She states that she knows petitioner No. 2. He is the person who had forcibly taken her away and had detained her for many days. He had forced her to put signatures on the affidavit as well as vakalatnama. She had not married him at all. She also stated that she wants to go with her parents and live with them. 9. The demeanor of petitioner No. 1 in making the above statement strengthens the belief of the Court at her statement is true and correct and that she has been pressurised to sign and file this petition. The filing of this petition on her behalf is not her free and independent act. 10. 9. The demeanor of petitioner No. 1 in making the above statement strengthens the belief of the Court at her statement is true and correct and that she has been pressurised to sign and file this petition. The filing of this petition on her behalf is not her free and independent act. 10. In view of the statement of the petitioner No. 1 given before this Court, it is apparent thatpetitioner No. 2 had kept petitioner No. 1 in illegal detention and there is no marriage between the petitioners with the free will of both of them. 11. Accordingly, the marriage as alleged in the petition of the petitioners if any is declared to be a nullity. The petitioner No. 1 is permitted to go with her parents to her home. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which has been reduced by the Court to half on the persuasion of the counsel appearing for petitioners. It shall be realized by the Collector Jaunpur from petitioner No. 2 as arrears of land revenue within three months and a report of realizing the same shall be submitted to the Court.