Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 87658 (ALL)

SMT PRIYA SHARMA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

HABC/736/2025 · 2025-09-07

Vinod Diwakar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 736 of 2025 Court No. - 85 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted by petitioner no. 2, the mother of the alleged corpus Smt. Priya Sharma (petitioner no. 1), seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to secure the production of petitioner no. 1, who is stated to have been legally married to respondent no. 5, Shivam Sharma. 3. In compliance with the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by this Court, the corpus, Smt. Priya Sharma (petitioner no. 1), has appeared before the Court along with her mother (petitioner no. 2). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the corpus has deserted her legally wedded husband, Shivam Sharma, and has entered into an illicit relationship with one Raja Miya. It is further submitted that out of the wedlock with respondent no. 5, a child, Master Aditya Sharma, was born, who is presently residing with his maternal grandmother (Nani) (petitioner no. 2). 5. Learned A.G.A. submits that an FIR being Case Crime No. 0370 of 2025, under Section 318(4) B.N.S. read with Sections 3 and 5(1) of the U.P. Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021, has been registered against respondent nos. 7 and 8, who are presently in custody. Upon interaction with the corpus, it has been ascertained that she is a major and has categorically expressed her unwillingness to accompany petitioner no. 2, her mother. 6. In view of the admitted position that the corpus is a major and has unequivocally expressed her choice not to return to the guardianship of petitioner no. 2, the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt Priya Sharma And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 7 Others .....Respondent(s) of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to compel her to do so. 7. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the writ petition stands dismissed. September 8, 2025 Shafique HABC No. 736 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad