Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 171814 (ALL)

SMT MANYA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

WRIC/32551/2025 · 2025-10-26

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32551 of 2025 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents not to interfere in their married life and also for protection of their lives and liberty. 2. The petitioners claim that they are adults and living together out of their own freewill. It is stated that for the said reason, the private respondent and his other family members have got annoyed and there is serious danger to the lives of the petitioners as they are being threatened and harassed. 3. In support of their age, the petitioner no. 1 has brought on record her marks statement-cum-certificate of Secondary School Examination, 2019, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner no. 1 is shown as 6.11.2002 and petitioner no. 2 has brought on record his certificate-cum-marksheet of High School Examination, 2009 wherein his date of birth is shown as 12.9.1993. Thus, it appears from the record that both the petitioners are major. They have performed their marriage in Arya Samaj Mandir, Aligarh on 13.5.20250. They have also brought on record the complete online application for registration of their marriage. 4. The petitioners have averred in the writ petition that they are living as wife and husband. It is stated that they have apprehension that private respondent can eliminate them for the honour of his family. In case this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. It is further submitted that as per best knowledge of the deponent, till date no first information report or any complaint has been lodged against them by any one. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. 6. In compliance of the earlier order dated 7.10.2025, both the petitioners are Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Shukla, Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt Manya And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) present in person before the Court. 7. On query made by this Court, petitioner no.1 submits that she is residing at Bidar, Karnataka with her husband/ petitioner no.2 where he is doing his job. She also stated that petitioner no.2 belongs to Aligarh and when they were residing there they have all the threats to life and on account of this petitioner no.2 got his job transferred to Karnataka and they were residing at Bidar, Karnataka happily. 8. Since both the petitioners are living in Karnataka they have no threat in U.P. now. In this way this petition has become infructuous. Needless to say that since petitioners are residing outside the State of Uttar Pradesh, there is no apprehension of danger to their lives in this State. 9. In view of the above, petition stands disposed of. October 27, 2025 Fhd WRIC No. 32551 of 2025 2 (Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad