Allahabad High Court
Maandevi And Another vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 12 January, 2021
Bench: Manoj Misra, Ravi Nath Tilhari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20170 of 2020
Petitioner :- Maandevi And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ulajhan Singh Bind,Kamlesh Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari,J.
As the previous orders passed by our predecessor bench in the proceedings on this petition reflect the facts of the case as well as the prayer made in this petition, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the same.
On 08.12.2020, following order was passed:-
"Heard Sri Ulajhan Singh Bind, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Mata Prasad, learned standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
Petitioner no.1 is a married woman. She is stated to be legally wedded wife of the respondent no.6 and has a daughter aged about six years from their wedlock.
Petitioner no.2 is married with the respondent no.7 and they have two children namely Ritik aged about five years and Pranshu aged about six years.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for a direction to the respondent-police authorities to provide police protection to the petitioners against the respondent nos.6 and 7. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner no.1 has fallen in love with the petitioner no.2 and both are living together.
Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted three days' time to obtain instructions.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioner no.1 has not taken divorce from her husband and the petitioner no.2 has also not divorced his wife. There is no decree of divorce.
Prima facie it appears that under the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly noted above, life of the minor son of the petitioner no.1 and her husband and that of the two children of the petitioner no.2 born from the wedlock of his wife, is spoiling, their entire future may be in dark and even their fundamental rights including the right to live with dignity may be jeopardised due to conduct of the petitioners.
Put up as a fresh case on 14.12.2020. "
Thereafter, on 14.12.2020, following order was passed:-
"Heard.
On 08.12.2020, we passed an order narrating brief facts of the case. Today, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikas Chandra Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents appeared and argued the matter. Sri Goyal submits as under:
(i) The act of two married couples destroying the institution of marriage and frustrating the personal law with the consequence of destroying the life of minor children, is a clear breach of fundamental rights of minor children to live with dignity as provided under Article 21 as well the morality under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) The facts as borne out in the present writ petition and briefly noted in the order dated 08.12.2020, indicates that the conduct of the petitioners is against morality which cannot have approval of a court of law, otherwise it shall infringe fundamental rights of minor children under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) In the present set of facts, the real conflict is between the two set of persons, namely, on one hand, the two married couples and on the other hand, their minor children. One set of persons cannot encroach upon the fundamental rights of the other set of persons, particularly when the other set of persons are minor children.
Sri Goyal has also invited our attention to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sarma vs V.K.V. Sarma, (2013) 15 SCC 755 (Paras-40, 41, 42, 53, 54, 55, 56.1 to 56.8, 67 and 68).
No time is now left today.
Put up as a fresh case for further hearing on 07.01.2021. "
Since then, the rosters have changed and, by order dated 05.01.2021 of the Hon'ble Senior Judge, the matter was directed to be listed before appropriate Court which, according to current roster, would be this Bench.
Despite revision of list, none is present on behalf of the petitioners to press the petition.
The learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction from the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh, District Farrukhabad. Copy of the written instructions have been supplied to the Court and shall be retained on record.
According to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, no application has been moved by any of the petitioners to provide security on account of any threat to their life or safety.
Under the circumstances, we do not find any good reason to issue any specific direction, as has been prayed for in the petition.
The petition is therefore disposed off by leaving it open to the petitioners to seek for security in case any untoward incident occurs and a report of it is made.
Order Date :- 12.1.2021
Sunil Kr Tiwari
