Smt. Itf @ Urmila And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 37405 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Itf @ Urmila And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 November, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:179754
 
Court No. - 78
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36606 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Itf @ Urmila And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C
 

 
Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar,J.
 

1. None appears on behalf of the petitioners even in the revised call nor any request for adjournment has been made on behalf of petitioner's counsel whereas learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.

2. The petitioners have filed the instant petition to seek protection against a threat to their lives and property from private respondent no. 3.

3. The petitioners' case is that the petitioner no.1 is living in live-in-relationship with petitioner no. 2 as husband and wife against the wishes of their parents and respondent no. 3, who is legally wedded husband of petitioner no. 1, therefore, apprehend threat to their lives by them. In the given background, the petitioners have preferred the instant petition for seeking direction to the police/respondents to take appropriate measures to protect their lives.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner no. 2 is already married with some lady, therefore, no protection can be granted. He further submits that the Division Bench of this Court in Asha Devi & Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors (Writ C-18743 of 2020) held and reiterated the settled law by the Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments about issuing a mandamus under Article 226, the Court must determine that the aggrieved person has a legal right that has been infringed. A mandamus is a command directing a person, corporation, inferior Court, or government to perform a specified public duty. It is issued against public authorities, administrative bodies, or anyone with a statutory or common law duty. The applicant must prove a legal right to the performance of this duty at the time of the petition.

5. Admittedly, the petitioner no.2 is already married with some lady, who has no legal right to be in live-in-relationship with petitioner no.1, therefore, no writ under Article 226 can be issued in their favour.

6. The instant petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 13.11.2024

Ujjawal

Justice Vinod Diwakar