[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Roopali Vishwa Mohan vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 21 January, 2026
Author: Rajeev Singh
Bench: Rajeev Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:4953
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 194 of 2026
Smt. Roopali Vishwa Mohan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Raghvendra Kumar Singh Ii
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following main prayers.
"i. Exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and direct the Family Court, Lucknow, to order expunction, or in the alternative, permanent redaction of all widow shaming, stigmatic and irrelevant averments concerning the Petitioner from the record of proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, Case No. 2737/2025. Such expunction or redaction shall not be construed as any finding on the merits of the allegations or the proceedings between the parties.
ii. Pending final disposal of the present petition, direct that the impugned widow-shaming and stigmatic averments relating to the Petitioner shall stand sealed and kept out of consideration from the judicial file and shall not be read, relied upon, reproduced or referred to by any court, authority or part
iii. Direct that such expunged or sealed material shall not be relied upon, reproduced or referred to in any present or future proceedings.
iv. Pending expunction or permanent redaction of the impugned averments, direct that proceedings under Section 144 BNSS, Case No. 2737/2025, if any, shall continue only on the basis of pleadings excluding the widow-shaming, stigmatic and irrelevant material, and that no reliance shall be placed upon the said material by any court or party."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of private respondent was solemnized with the brother of the petitioner and due to some matrimonial dispute in between them, respondent no. 2 filed petition under Section 144 of B.N.S.S. It is submitted that in the said petition, some derogatory words were used.
It is further submitted that the petitioner filed application for expunging the scandalous and derogatory averments used against her, but the said application was rejected by the trial court vide order dated 03.01.2026 with the observation that petitioner/applicant is not a party in the said case. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Mohd. Naim, 1963 SCC OnLine SC 22, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said case some derogatory observations have been made against the police force by the High Court, which was challenged and while allowing the appeal, order for deletion of said derogatory remarks was passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court is necessary and the order dated 03.01.2026 is liable to be set aside passed on the application of the petitioner and also to direct the private respondent to delete the word 'widow' from the averments.
4. Learned A.G.A., while opposing the prayer of the petitioner, submits that the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case, as any person cannot take shelter of the Court with the prayer for directions to any private person for making specific pleadings in the court. It is further submitted that if anyone is aggrieved with the derogatory pleadings, then separate legal remedy is available to him/her. It is, thus, submitted that there is no illegality in the order passed by the trial court.
5. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the petition, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that there is a matrimonial dispute in between the brother of the petitioner and the private respondent. The respondent no. 2 filed a petition for maintenance, in which, the word 'widow' has been used in relation to the petitioner. However, admittedly, there is no such observation of the trial court and the matter is still pending for final adjudication. Moreover, admittedly, the petitioner is not a party in the said case. Evidently, no such direction can be issued directing the private respondent to make pleadings in specified manner. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the present case, as admittedly, there was derogatory observation of the High Court for the entire police force, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was entertained.
6. In view of above facts and discussions, the petition is misconceived and stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Singh,J.)
January 21, 2026
VKS
