High Court · 2025

13. Peesari Meolranath, S/o Not known to the petitioner, Aqed about 70 vears. Occ. Retd. Emptoyee, Caste. S.C.Mala, Fieliqion. Hindu. ruo tiu;rioali; Mandal. Hanumakonda. District. Hanumakonda]Telargana-506001 , - -- '' 14 Nimmakuri nrt":[ !"0_V, Slp. N Shyambabu. Agect about 33 years, Occ. Constable ln C.l.S.F Fire. Ryo H.No.7-69_4, Veleru, Mandal. Nimmakuru, District. Krishna, And h ra pradesh-521 158,

15. Jaripally Durgaprasad, S/o late Venkateshwara Rao. Aoed about 32 vears Caste- S.C.l\,4adiga, Occ. Business. Fl/o H.No.1-7-23lB South t<imiLfiro* tClL Post, N4andal. Kapra. District. I\Ialkajigir, Tela nga na_500062.

16. Ir,4eda Prasad, S/o Not knowr to the petitioner, Aged tMajor, Occ. S.1., \lq!.r.S_rru Potice Station, District. Bhadradri-kotdagudeni,'felinga;Ji 507117,

17.Ambar Kishor Jha l.P.S., Commissioner of police. Waranoal Commissionerate 5-7-66, National Highway 1 63, Kisha.pura, ftanumaionda, Telangana, lndia-506001 18 K 9evendal Reddy S/o Not known .to the petitioner Aged. A,4ajor, Occ. Asststant Commissioner of police, Hanumakonda Drvisi5n. 2H32_EFWO, Circuit House Rd, Gokulnagar, Hanamkonda, Telangana 50600.1

19. P Sathyanarayana Reddy. S/o Not known to the petitioner, Aqed. I\,4ror. occ. Circle lnspe_ctor of police. Subedari police Station, SuOedaril fGnJ;k.;i;: Telangana 50600'1 S Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or wrrt more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus in the following prayers, ..,RESPONDENTS ('l ) To pass an order to decrare the marriage of the respondents No.5 and 6 solemnized on 09-04-2024 at sri. Goda Ranganayaka Temple. Godavarikhani is illegal. arbitrary, against the constitutional aspects, againsl the Hindu Marriage Act, '1955. (2) To pass an order to direct the respondents No.5 and 6 to rive separatery, ..,. ,... " -. r-r:k"' (3) To pass an order to declare the acts of the respondents No.1 7 to 1 9 in failure to register the criminar case against the respondents No.6 to r 6 U/s sec. 23, 2q, 25,34, 107, .109, 119, 120(B), 124(A), 187,201 ,202,212,213,217,218,21s, 22O,302,366, 383 to 389, 403, 406, 407, 420, 493 and 496, 499, 500 of The lndian Penal code and the relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 including Sec.lB (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, U/s 412 of Cr.p.C. and any other relevant provisions found by the Hon'ble High court against the respondents No.6 to 16 are illegal, arbitrary and against the concepts of the constitution of lndia, (4) To Pass an order to declare the joint speaking dismissal order in complaints by the Hon'ble lll-Additional Judicial First class Magistrate, at Hanumakonda in crl.M.P.S.R.No.2794 of 2024, in crr.M.p.s.R.No .2795 of 2024, in crr. tVr.p. No. 45112024, in crl. M.P. No.452 of 2o24in crl. M.p. No. 453 of zo24 dated:07-08- 2024 is also illegal, arbitrary, against the constitutional aspects, further direct the respondent No.1 to investigate into the offences committed the by the respondents No.6 to 19 by setting aside the joint speaking order of the magistrate in crl.M.P.s.R.No.2794 of 2024, in crl.M.p.s.R.No.2795 of 2024, in Crl. M.P. No. 45112024, in Crt. M.p. No. 452 of 2OZ4 in Crt. M.p. No. 4S3 of 2024, dated:O7 -08-2024. (5) To pass an order to direct the respondents No.2 and 3 to take necessary action as per the law against the respondents No.17 to 1g for praying a wiflfur negligence, corrupted practice, discrimination while discharging the duties, further direct the respondents No.6 to 16 clear the bank loans of the respondent No.5 immediately to lead her beautiful life in future. Prayer amended as per C.O. dt. 04.02.2025 in l.A.No.S ot 2024,. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petitlon under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass an interlm order by directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to initiate the departmental inquiry against the respondents No.17 to 1g and to take necessary actions as per law for playing a role of discriminative, corrupted administration and misuse of powers in the interest of justice. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition unijer Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an interim order by directing the respondent No.1 to comprete the investigation within three months in this heinous crime and file the charge sheet before the competent court in the interest of justice. lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High.court may be preased to pass an interim order by imposing societar punishment against the respondents No'17 to 19 for a period of three months for negrecting the duties whire discharging their regitimate dutres, for creating uncountabre mentar agony in the minds of both the famiries by supporting the respondents No.s ana o ittegat cohabitations, further in extorting the money of the respondent No.s by respondents No.6 to 16 for failures to follow the procedure in the interest of sociar justice within the period of disposar of writ petition other departmentar prosecution and punishment. lA NO: 4 OF 2024 Petition under Section i 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to pass an interim order by directing the respondents No.5 and 6 to-Iive separatery till the disposar of this writ petition and respect the Hindu rerigious customs and traditions of Hindu Marriage Act, 19s5, to respect the constitutionar idears, to protect the living right of the respondent No.5 from the clutches of the respondents No.6 to 19, to decrease the mentar agony in both famiries, to protect reputation of both famiries in pass an interim order by directing the respondents No.6 to 16 to crear the roans of the respondent No.5 in the interLst of lusiice. counsel for the Petitioner: SRr DARA sRrsArLAM [pARTy-rN-pERSoN] counsel for the Respondent No.1: sRr SRTNIVAS KAPATTA, spl pp FoR cBr Counsel for the Respondent No.2: AGp FOR GAD Counsel for the Respondent No.3 & 4: AGp FOR HOME Counsel for the Respondent No.5 to 7: SRI p.ANlMl REDDy The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No. 24054 OF 2024 ORDER Heard Mr. Dara Srisailam, leamed Party-in-Person, Mr' Srinivas Kapati4 leamed Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing on behalf of respondent No.l, leamed Assistant Government Pleader for GAD appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, leamed Assistant Govemment Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4 and Mr. P. Animi Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent Nos-5 and 6.

2. The facts and the reliefs claimed in the present writ petition are rather bizarre. The Petitioner, who appeared as a party-in-person, states that his daughter (Respondent No. 5 herein) eloped and married Respondent No. 6 on 09.04.2024. He alleges that Respondent No. 6 is his mother's sister's grandson and that he is a blood relative of Respondent No. 5. IIe is brother in relation to respondent No'5' Therefore, the marriage of Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6 fatls within the degrees of prohibited relationship and is void.

3. According to the Petitioner, Respondent No. 6 used 'black magic' to entice Respondent No. 5 and got married to her. After marriage, Respondent No. 6 has been threatening Respondent No' 5 to 2 KI-,J w.P No 24051 of2024 obtain loans firr him and his famity. Petitioner alleges that his daughter Respondent No. 5 has obtaincd loans to the tune of Its. 85 lakhs from multiplc banks and has handed over the same to Respondent No. 6 and his family. Further. it is alleged that Respondent Nos. 7 to l6 are friends and family ol Respondent No. 6 and that they have conspired with Respondent No. 6 to help him 'abduct' Respondent No. 5 and marry her. In addition to the allegations of an inccshrous marriage and misappropriation ofmoncy, thc Petitioner also alleged that Respondent No. 6 was involved in murdering his first wifc.

4. lhe Petitioner states that he had lodged a complaint under Sections 23.21.25.34. 107.109, 119, 1208. 124A, 187, 201, 202,2t2, 213, 217,218. 220.302, 366,383, 384, 385, 386, 387. 388. 389, 403, 406, 407, 420, 493, 496, 499 and 500 of the Indian I,enal Code, 1860 (hereinafter 'lPC') and Section 18 of the l{indu Marriage Act. 1955 (hereinafter 'HMA') against Respondent Nos. 6 to 16.Howcver, Respondcnt Nos. 17 to l9 failed to take any action and did not register thc complaint. Therefore, hc fited two private complaints bcfore the leamed III Additional Junior Civil Judge - cum - III Additional Judicial Magistratc of the First Class (hereinafter 'Magistrate,). The first complaintTurz..Crl. S.R. No. 2794 of 2024 was filed seeking a direction 3 Kl-.j W.P No 24054 of2024 to the police authorities to register the Petitioner's complaint against Respondent Nos. 6 to 16 under Sections 23,24,25,34, 107, 109, 119, t2oq, 124 A, 187, 20t, 202, 2 t 2, 2t 3, 2r7, 2r8, 220, 302, 366, 3 83, 3 84, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 403, 406, 407,420,493,496,499 and 500 0f the IPC and Section 18 of the HMA. The second complaint v2., Crl. S.R. No. 2795 of 2024 against Respondent Nos. 17 to 19 under Sections 23, 24,25,34, 107, 109, l19, 120B, t24A, t87,201,202,212,213,217, 218,220,302,366,383, 384, 38s, 386, 387, 388, 389, 403, 406, 407, 420, 493, 496, 499 and 500 of the IPC, Section 18 of the HMA and Sections 197 E 472 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure for failure to take action against Respondent Nos. 6 to 16.

5. The Petitioner had also filed Crl. M.P. No. 451 of 2024 under Article 51A of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to live separately and not cohabit. He filed Crl. M.P. No. 452 of 2024 under Sections 2 (I-) and I 68 read with 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer to collect names of Respondent No. 6's friends who have helped him marry Respondent No. 5. Likewise, the Petitioner filed Crl. M.P. No. 453 of 2024 under Sections 367 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 read with 105 of the Mental Healthcare t- I 4 KI-,J W P No 24054 of2024 Act,20l'7 seeking to send Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 for a 'psychological test'.

6. 'l'he leamed Magistrate, vde common order dated 07.08.2024, dismissed both the complaints and the three applications filed by the Petitioner. 'Ihe said common order held that none of the alleged offences were madc out. The court noted that no proof has been adduced by the Petitioner in support of his allegation that Respondent No. 5's marriage with Respondent No.6 falls within the degrecs of prohibited relationship

7. -l'hrough the present petition, the Petitioner seeks the lollowing re Iie ls A declaration that the marriage between Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6 is void and a direction to them to live separately; A declaration that the action of Respondent Nos. 17 to l9 in not registering a case against Respondent Nos. 6 to 16 as illegal: iii. A declaration that the common order dated 07 .08.2024 passed by the leamed magistrate is illegal and arbitrary and a consequent direction to set aside the same; 5 KL,J W.P. No 24054 of 2024 iv. A direction to the CBI to investigate the case and take necessary action against Respondent Nos. 6 to 19.

8. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had filed their reply affidavit denying the allegations of the Petitioner. They stated that the maniage was consensuai and not within the degrees of prohibited relationship.

9. Considering the facts of the case and the reasons stated herein below, this Court holds that the present writ petition is not maintainable qza Respondents 5 and 6.

10. It is trite that a writ petition under Article 226 can be filed by a person if his/her fundamental rights or legal rights are violated. Further, such a writ petition can be filed against the State or its instrumentality or a private entify discharging any public function'

11. Even the widest possible interpretation given to Anicle 226 cannot make the present writ petition maintainable in as much as neither any fundamentat right of the Petitioner is violated nor any legal right is vested in him. Admittedly, the Petitioner claims that the marriage between his daughter - Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No. 6 is void as it falls within the degrees of prohibited relationship as defined under the HMA. However, none of the provisions of the HMA confer any legal -\\ 6 KI,J w P No 24054 of2024 right on a third party to seek dissolution of marriage on the ground that thc marriagc is within the degrees of prohibited relationship.

12. tt is rclevant to note that Section 5 ol the IjMA speaks of conditions o1-rnarriage. Sub-sections (iv) and (v) of Section 5 state that parties contracting a marriage should not be within the degrees ol prohibitcd relationship and cannot be sapindas ofeach other. Section 5 is extracted belou .

5. A marriage may be solemnized between any two llindus, if the fbllorving conditions are fulfilled, namely- (i) neither part)'has a spouse living at the time ofthe maniage; (ii) al the time ofthe maniage, neither party- (a) is incapable of giving a valid consent to it in consequence of unsr'rLrndness of mind: or (b) though capable of giving a valid consen! has been suffering frorn rrcntal disorder olsuch a kind or to such an exlent as to be unfrt tbr maniagc and the procreation ofchildren; or (c) has becn sub-ject to recurrent attacks of insanity; (iii1 the bridcgroom has completed the age of twenq -one years and the hride, the age ofeighteen years at the time ofthe marriage; (iv) thc parties are not within the degrees of prohibited relationship unlcss the custom or usage goveming each of theln permits of a marriage betwecn the two; (v) the parties are not sapindas of each other, unless the custom or usagc goveming each of them permits of a marriage between the [w0: 7 K], J w.P. No 24054 of2024

13. Likewise, it is relevant to refer to Sections l1 and 13 of the HMA which deal with void marriages and divorce. Both these provisions state that only parties to a marriage can hle a petition seeking declaration of a marriage as void or a petition seeking dissolution marriage. None of the provisions state that a third partylfamily person can seek dissolution of marriage or a declaration that a marriage is void. In the absence ofany legal right, the Petitioner does not have locus standi to maintain the present writ petition.

14. The relevant portions of Sections 11 and 13 of the HMA are extracted below:

11. Any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may, on a Detition D resented bv either partv thereto against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of section 5. 13. l) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement ofthis Act, may, on a oetition nresented bv either the husband or the wife. be dissolved by a decree of divorcc on the ground that the other party-

15. During the course of hearing, the Petitioner contended that the writ petition would be maintainable as there is no remedy under the HMA. This is a misconceived argument. In the absence of any right in a : 8 KL,J W P No 24054 of2024 father/family mcmber to seek dissolution of marriage, no question of a remedy exists. in other words, as no legal right exists in a third party to claim dissolution of marriage or a declaration that a marriage is void, no such remedy in the form of a writ petition will be available I 6. Anothcr reason for the non-maintainabilif of the writ petition is that a direction is sought against two private individuals. Its unfathomable that a writ against a private person, who does not perform any public dut\ lstatutory duty, will be maintainable.

17. Therefore. the Petitioner cannot seek a declaration to the effect that the marriage between Respondent No. 5 and Respondent No 6 is illegal and void

18. In relation to the other contentions regarding the alleged inaction of Respondent Nos. 17 to 19, the dismissal of the petitioner's complaint b1, the leamed magistrate vide common order dated

07.08.2024 and investigation by the CBI, this Court holds that the same are without merit. The disputes between the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are matrimonial and, therefore, the petitioner cannot seek to entrust the inr,estigation to CBI as held by this Court in B. Sailesh Saxena v. The Union of India, rep.by its Secretary of Ministry of I KL,J W.P. No 24054 of2024 Home Affairs, New Delhil. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed En the other Respondents too

19. As stated above, the Petitioner has alleged that Respondent No. 6 committed multiple offences. In brief, the allegations against him include murdering his first wife, misappropriating the loans obtained by his wife - Respondent No. 5 and marrying within degrees of prohibited relationship. The allegations against Respondent Nos. 7 to 16 are that they conspired with Respondent No. 6. 20- Ex facie, the allegations levelled by the Petitioner are exaggerated and highly improbable. The Petitioner cannot allege that Respondent No. 6 had murdered his first wife without any basis is not supported by any material. Likewise, the allegation of Respondent No. 6 threatening Respondent No. 5 to obtain loans also appears to be false in as much as Respondent No. 5 obtained the loan in her own name and has not lodged any complaint to that effect. In fact, she had an opportunity before this Court to make any such allegations. However, as no complaint of misappropriation of the alleged loan amount was lodged by Respondent No. 5, the allegations of theft, extortion misappropriation, etc. cannot be accepted t. AIROnline 2021 TEL 122 l0 KL,J w.P No.24054 of2024 2I . Lcarned Party-in-person has filed a memo vide USR No.121299, dated 0'1 .12.2024 stating his daughter, respondent No.5 herein, sent a text message from her mobile No.8341443452 to her elder brother mobilc No.8008990384 on 03.12.2024 at about 12.08 AM mid- night. He has filed screen shot of the same. Perusal of the same would reveal that shc has informed the petitioner herein, her mother and elder brother that in their abscnce she cannot live, intending to die and she is intending to speak to her mother. Therefore, she requested them to permit hcr to speak to her mother.

22. As regards the allegation that the Petitioner has committed an offencc under Section 18 of the HMA by marrying withirl the degrees of prohibited rolationship. this Court holds that the same cannot be raised by the Pctitioner. As stated above, the HMA does not confer a right on a third party/family member to raise a dispute about validity of a marriage' An oflence under Section 18 of the HMA can be registered only where a court of competent jurisdiction, on a petition filed by either of the parties to the marriage under Section l1 of the HMA, declares that a marriage is void on account of contravention of conditions prescribed under Section s of t66 gtvt.q. Unless a competent court declares that the marriage was u'ithin degrees of prohibitcd relationship, no offence under Section 18 of (I,J W P No 24054 of2024 the HMA can be registered. In the present case, the Petitioner has no IocuS to allege that the marriage of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 was within degrees of prohibited relationship and a criminal case under Section l8 of the HMA ought to have been registered.

23. In view of the above discussion, the decisions relied upon by leamed Party-in-Person in Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P.2, State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal3, K.K. Saksena v. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainageo, M/s. Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtras, S.R Sukumar v. S. Sunaad Raghuram6, Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P.7, State of Bihar v. Deokaran NenshiE, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.e, Om Prakash Sharma v. State of M.P.10 and Alok Kumar v. Ilarsh Manderrr are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the facts and principle laid down therein are different to the facts of the present case. Crl.A. No.6t of20t3, decided on 09.01.2013 (SC) Civil Appeal No.7300 of2022, decided on 27.03.2023 (SC) Civil Appeal No.11499/2014, decided on 18.12.2014(SC) Crl- A. No-680 of 2021, decided on 26.07.2021 (SC) Crl.A. No-844 of20l5, decided on 02.07.2015 (SC) Crl-A. No.43 of200l, decided on 10.01.2001 (SC) AIR 1973 SC 908 Crl-A. No-16E5 of2007, decided on 07-12-2007 (SC) . Misc. Crl.Case No.44485 of2020, decided on 25.03.2021 (MPHC) l0 tt. crl.M.c. No.1463 of 2020 &crl.M-A. N0.5732of 2020, decided on 21.07.2023 (Delhi HC) { I n 12 KL,J W.P No 24054 of 2024

24. This Court holds that none of the allegations raised by the Petitioner make out any offence as alleged. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was.justificd in passing the common order dated 07 .09.2024.

25. As this Cor.rrt holds Lhat prima facie no offence against Respondent Nos. 5 to 16 is made out, no action can be sought against Respondent Nos. 17 to 19. Likewise, no offence exists for the CBI to investigate. Thcrefore, this Court hotds that no reliefagainst Respondent Nos. 17 to 19 and the CBI can be sought.

26. In light of the aloresaid discussion, the present writ petition is Iiable to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. In the circumstances olthc case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto. miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// ASSIST SD/- K. AMMAJI NT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To,

1. Qala Sreesailam, Sio late Dara Rajaiah, Aged about 56 years, Caste S.C.Mala, Occ Practicing Advocate, Fl/o H.No.2-6-601, Teachers Colony, Waddepally, Hanumakonda, Telangana-506370.

2. One CC to SRI DARA SRISAILAI\4 [PARTY-IN-PERSON] 3. One CC to SRI P.ANllVl REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS KAPATIA, SPL PP FOR CBI [OPUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR HOIVE, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

6. Two CCs to GP FOR GAD, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] T CD Copies 0- 7 BSR GJP HIGH COURT DATED: 0410212025 ORDER WP.No.24054 of 2024 1 Y 25 llAB 2025 ? 7 C \. DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS ,r{