Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 155773 (ALL)

KANIKA KASAUDHAN THRU. HER FATHER KRISHNA KUMAR v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS

HABC/280/2025 · 2025-08-12

Subhash Vidyarthi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47091 Court No. - 13 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 280 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kanika Kasaudhan Thru. Her Father Krishna Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar,Vinod Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. In compliance of the order dated 05.08.2025, Shri Naveen Yadav, the opposite party No.4 is present before this Court along with the alleged detenue Smt. Kanika Kasaudhan, who has been produced by Sub-Inspector Neeraj Chaurasia and Constable Sandhya Dixit, Police Station- Kumarganj, District- Ayodhya along with Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA. 2. The petitioner- Shri Krishna Kumar is also present along with his counsel Sri Vinod Kumar. 3. The alleged detenue Kanika Kasaudhan has stated that she has married the opposite party No.4- Sri Dileep Yadav out of her own free will. She has stated that her date of birth is 11.11.2005 and she is of marriageable age. The opposite party No.4 has stated that he is aged 25 years and he is also of marriageable age. 4. Sri Dileep Yadav and Smt. Kanika Kasaudhan both stated that they have married each other out of their own free will and the alleged detenue stated that she has not been forcibly taken away or detained by the opposite party No.4. 5. Both of them further stated that there is no animosity between them and the petition, who is the father of the detenue or other family members and they stated that no obstruction will be created in continuation of relations of detenue with her parents and other family members. 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid statements made by the alleged detenue as well as the opposite party No.4, it appears that the alleged detenue is not in illegal confinement. 7. The petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lacks merits and the same is dismissed accordingly. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] Order Date :- 12.8.2025/-Amit K- Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench