HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 36834 of 2026 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Shri Dileep Singh Yadav, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 3, which is taken on record. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife and further direction has also been sought for the authorities concerned to provide protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are major and have solemnized marriage and are living as husband and wife. 3. It is stated that private respondent and other family members have got annoyed with the petitioners as they have solemnized marriage against their wishes, as such there is serious danger to their lives as they are being threatened and harassed. It is further stated that the petitioners have already applied for registration of their marriage. In case, this Court does not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. The averments made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that that the respondent No. 3 is the father of the petitioner No.2. On 26.06.2026 he has solemnized marriage of his daughter (petitioner No. 2) with one Ray Singh, S/o Bhurey Singh. Learned counsel further submits that once the marriage of the petitioner no. 2 has already been solemnized, then subsequent marriage of the petitioner no.2 with the petitioner no. 1 is null and void since no divorce has been taken by her from her previous husband and that marriage is still subsisting. He thus submits that the petitioners have not only concealed the material fact but have also given Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Narendra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Sandeep Kumar And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) false affidavit before this Court and therefore the proceedings in accordance with law may be initiated against the petitioners. 5. The father of the petitioner No. 2 as well as her previous husband, namely Ray Singh, are also present in this Court, who have been identified by their counsel, Shri Dileep Singh. They both have also recorded their statements in writing, which have been verified by their counsel, Shri Dileep Singh Yadav, and are taken on record. The father of the petitioner No. 2, i.e., respondent No. 3 has stated that he had solemnized marriage of his daughter, Soni Yadav (petitioner No. 2) with Ray Singh on 26.06.2026, but during subsistence of her first marriage, she has again solemnized marriage with the petitioner no.1, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Ray Singh, also stated that his marriage was solemnized with Soni Yadav (petitioner No. 1) on 26.06.2026. 6. According to the statements of father of the petitioner No. 2 and her previous husband, it is evident and amply clear that the marriage of the petitioner no. 2 was solemnized with Ray Singh on 26.06.2026, thereafter she went away with the petitioner No. 1 and has solemnized marriage with him. In the instant petition, the petitioners have filed a joint affidavit, wherein it has been categorically averred that they have solemnized marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals and Satpadi rituals before the fire on 20.07.2026 and are living as husband and wife. The first marriage of the petitioner no. 2 was well within knowledge of the petitioner no. 1, but inspite of the same, the petitioner no. 1 has solemnized marriage with her and without disclosing the fact of earlier marriage of the petitioner no. 2, the petitioners have come up before this Court seeking protection. Thus, the act of the petitioner No. 2 falls within the offence of bigamy. Under Indian law, bigamy is strictly prohibited and treated as a serious criminal offense for the majority of its citizens. Governed primarily by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 (which applies to Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs) as well as the Special Marriage Act of 1954, any subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid first marriage is considered null and void from its inception. 7. Apart from the above, the petitioners have not come before the Court with clean hands. They have not disclosed in the petition about their marital status. Time and again, the issue of abuse of process of law has WRIC No. 36834 of 2026 2 come up before Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts. The Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. 8. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (2007)6 SCC 120, Supreme Court held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must of material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It was further held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. 9. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India (2007)8 SCC 449, Apex Court held as under: "It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.". 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010)2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous litigants by holding that it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. 11. Considering the aforesaid preposition of law as well as the facts of the instant case that the petitioner no. 2 was already married with one Ray Singh. That marriage is still subsisting and that marriage was within the knowledge of the petitioner no. 1. The Court takes note of the contents of WRIC No. 36834 of 2026 3 paragraph no. 7 of the petition, wherein it has been specifically stated that this is the first marriage of the petitioners by Hindu rites and rituals according to law, whereas father of the petitioner No. 2 and her previous husband have stated that the petitioner No. 2 is already married, which clearly demonstrates the intent of the petitioners to mislead the Court. The petitioners have suppressed the material facts and have given false affidavit before this Court which tantamount to play fraud upon the court since they have not disclosed the true facts regarding first marriage of the petitioner No. 2. Therefore, it is clearly visible that false joint affidavit has been given by the petitioners only to get an order of protection by playing fraud upon the Court. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, rather the proceedings under Sections 379 of B.N.S.S. is liable to be initiated against them. 12. Accordingly the instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, is directed to initiate proceedings under Section 379 of B.N.S.S. against the petitioners in accordance with law. 14. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate the order passed by this Court to the concerned Magistrate, forthwith. September 15, 2026 Mustaqeem./S.Mishra WRIC No. 36834 of 2026 4 (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad