Smt. Geeta & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 23 May 2025
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. After perusal of the instructions so received by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and after considering the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, one thing is crystal clear that there is hardly any cause of action or any prejudice caused to…
Judgment
Court No. - 74 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6839 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Geeta And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikher Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has handed over a copy of the instructions, the same is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
By way of the present writ petition, a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in peaceful marital life of petitioners, has been sought.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is a permanent fear persisting in the mindset of petitioner nos. 1 regarding her uncle (elder brother of her father), since altogether he was not happy with solemnization of marriage between petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
Fear as mentioned by learned counsel for the petitioners is still subsist in the sub-conscious mind of the petitioners.
Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that no writ petition permissible under Article 226 of Constitution of India only on the basis of fear persisting in the mind of the petitioners.
After perusal of the instructions so received by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and after considering the arguments so raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, one thing is crystal clear that there is hardly any cause of action or any prejudice caused to the petitioners which arises cause of action for filing the instant petitioner and as such the same is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 #Vik/-
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 23 May 2025. The bench was SAURABH SRIVASTAVA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.