Smt Mansi Sheetprasad Pandey D/O ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3389 MP

                             1
        THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                      WP No.12076/2021
 Smt. Mansi Sheetprasad Pandey & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

                      Through Video Conferencing

Gwalior, Dated : 16.07.2021

         Shri Rahul Yadav, Counsel for the petitioners.

         Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Additional Advocate General for the

State.

         This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has

been filed seeking the following reliefs:

               i.     That, the respondents may kindly be

directed not to arrest the petitioners and the family members of the petitioner number -2 in connection of the marriage of the petitioners.

ii. That, the statement of petitioners no.1 may kindly be recorded before this Hon'ble court or directions may be issued to the concerned JMFC to record under section 164 of Cr.P.C.

iii. That, if the case registered in the police station regard to missing of the petitioners the respondent be directed to close the same. iv. That, to declare that the petitioners are married.

v. Cost of this petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.

It is the case of the petitioners that they are major and are of

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.12076/2021 Smt. Mansi Sheetprasad Pandey & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

marriageable age and since the parents of the petitioner No.1 are

threatening the petitioners, therefore, they should be provided

protection in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court

in the case of Lata Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in (2006) 5 SCC

475.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel

for the State. It is submitted that it is clear from the mark sheet of the

petitioner No.1, that she is the resident of Mumbai whereas the

marriage was performed in NOIDA. It is further submitted that from

the mark sheet of the petitioner No.2 it is also clear that he was

enrolled in the State of U.P. in NOIDA. Thus it is submitted that the

petitioner No.2 is the resident of NOIDA and in order to bring this

case within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court it has been falsely

projected that the petitioner is the resident of Ambah, District

Morena.

In reply, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that

earlier the petitioner has prosecuted his studies in NOIDA and he was

doing job in NOIDA and as they were getting constant threat at

NOIDA, therefore, the petitioner No.2 has shifted to Ambah, District

Morena after leaving his job.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.12076/2021 Smt. Mansi Sheetprasad Pandey & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

parties.

From the mark sheet of the petitioner No.1 it is clear that she is

the resident of Mumbai. From the mark sheet of petitioner No.2 it is

clear that he has passed his Secondary School Examination from

National Institute of Open Schooling and he was enrolled in NOIDA,

State of U.P. According to the marriage certificate, even the marriage

was performed in Arya Samaj Mandir, Behind City Park, Shiv

Mandir, Navada. Although in the marriage certificate, the permanent

address of the petitioner No.2 has been shown as Ward No.7, Khajuri

Road, Ambah, District Morena but according to the petitioner himself

at the time of marriage, the petitioner No.2 was working in NOIDA.

So far as the fact that the petitioner No.2 has left his job and

shifted in Morena is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in

absence of any such pleading in the writ petition. Even according to

the counsel for the petitioners, the petitioner had shifted to Morena

because of the threats given by the parents of the petitioner No.1 at

NOIDA. Thus it is clear that neither the petitioner No.1 nor petitioner

no.2 are the residents of a place falling within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court, although they have tried to bring the case

within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by projecting that the

permanent address of the petitioner No.2 is Ambah, District Morena.

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WP No.12076/2021 Smt. Mansi Sheetprasad Pandey & Anr. vs. State of M.P. & Ors.

Further their marriage was performed in Navada (U.P.) and the threats

were allegedly extended to the petitioners in NOIDA. Thus no cause

of action either in part or in whole has arisen within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Court.

Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered

opinion that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this

petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the

petitioners to approach the appropriate Court either in Maharashtra or

in U.P.

(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2021.07.19 10:08:18 +05'30'