# Shatakshi Mishra v. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1803
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-08
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 394 of 2024
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shatakshi-mishra-v-deepak-mahendra-pandey-deceased-ors-51890
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 5 r/w Section 11 - Respondent
(Husband) filed petition under Section
11 - Ground - Marriage was an outcome
of fraud - Appellant (Wife) was already
married
-

During
marriage,
she
projected herself as unmarried - she has
not
converted
into
Hinduism
and
marriage be declared - Husband died in
road accident - Application filed by
parents after the respondent's death -
Said application was allowed - Held,
provisions of Order 22 of CPC are
applicable in view of provisions of the
Family Court Act - parents were made
party to the proceedings to pursue the
petition - Impugned order challenged in
appeal (Para - 2, 3, 4 )

Held: The provisions of Order 22 CPC are
applicable in the proceedings pending before
the Family court under Section 11 of the Act.
Legal Representative who is not "either of the
parties" and was not one of the spouse to the
marriage in question can pursue the petition
filed under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 that marriage should be declared
void and therefore, their application filed
under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC would be
maintainable. It is clear that in such matters
the declaration would have an impact on
proprietary rights and socio-legal status of the
parties cannot be said to have died with such
a person. Hence, no illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned. (Para - 17, 27, 29, 32)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Shatakshi Mishra Vs. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors.
1803
Supply Inspector himself repetitively went
to the petitioner's house himself to serve a
notice asking him to show cause and the
petitioner declined to receive the notice. Had
he appeared in response to the notice, a copy
of the enquiry report could have been
provided to him or he could have demanded
the same. In view of this conduct of the
petitioner
in
deliberately
avoiding
participation in the enquiry, he cannot
complain of denial of a proper opportunity
of hearing to him.

19. In these circumstances, the
impugned order dated 12.10.2017 does not
suffer from any such illegality as may
warrant any interference by this Court in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. The writ petition lacks merit and the
same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1803
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J.

First Appeal No. 394 of 2024

Shatakshi Mishra ...Appellant
Versus
Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) &
Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Shailendra Kumar Ojha, Shyam Surat Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
Rakesh Dubey

Family Law - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 -
Section 5 r/w Section 11 - Respondent
(Husband) filed petition under Section
11 - Ground - Marriage was an outcome
of fraud - Appellant (Wife) was already
married
-

During
marriage,
she
projected herself as unmarried - she has
not
converted
into
Hinduism
and
marriage be declared - Husband died in
road accident - Application filed by
parents after the respondent's death -
Said application was allowed - Held,
provisions of Order 22 of CPC are
applicable in view of provisions of the
Family Court Act - parents were made
party to the proceedings to pursue the
petition - Impugned order challenged in
appeal (Para - 2, 3, 4 )

Held: The provisions of Order 22 CPC are
applicable in the proceedings pending before
the Family court under Section 11 of the Act.
Legal Representative who is not "either of the
parties" and was not one of the spouse to the
marriage in question can pursue the petition
filed under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 that marriage should be declared
void and therefore, their application filed
under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC would be
maintainable. It is clear that in such matters
the declaration would have an impact on
proprietary rights and socio-legal status of the
parties cannot be said to have died with such
a person. Hence, no illegality or infirmity in
the order impugned. (Para - 17, 27, 29, 32)

Appeal is dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. Garima Singh Vs Pratima Singh & anr., 2023
(9) ADJ 101 (DB)

2. Maharani Kusumkumari & anr. Vs Smt.
Kusumkumari Jadeja & anr., (1991) 1 SCC 582

3. Samar Kumar Roy (Dead) through Legal
Representative (Mother) Vs Jharna Bera, (2017)
9 SCC 591

4. Yallawwa Vs Shantavva, (1997) 11 SCC 159

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.
&
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.)
1804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Shri Shyam Surat Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellant and Shri
Rakesh Dubey, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.

2. The present appeal has been filed
against the judgement and order dated
10.01.2024 passed by Additional Principal
Judge, Family Court No.3, Kanpur Nagar, in
Case no.893 of 2022 (Deepak Mahendra
Pandey Versus Shatakshi Mishra), under
Section 11/5 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

3. One Deepak Mahendra Pandey filed
a petition, under Section 11 of the Act on
05.04.2022 on the ground that the marriage
was an outcome of fraud as he has come to
know that Shatakshi Mishra (the wife,
appellant herein) was already married
whereas at the time of marriage, she
projected herself as unmarried and even
produced
various
documents
showing
herself as unmarried girl and that she has
also not converted into Hinduism and
therefore, the marriage be declared void
after filing of the petition. Unfortunately, the
husband, Deepak Mahendra Pandey died on
24.02.2023 in a road accident.

4. By the impugned order dated
10.01.2024 , the application filed by the
parents after the death of their son was
allowed holding that the provisions of Order
22 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter
referred to as the 'CPC') are applicable in the
present case in the light of the provisions of
the Family Court Act and the parents were
made party to the proceedings to pursue the
petition.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for
the appellant that the dispute cannot
continue after death of one of the spouse
during the pendency of the litigation. He
submits that after the death of the husband
on 24.02.2023, the petition would stand
abated.

6. It is further submitted that the Court
below has committed a gross mistake of law
in holding that the provisions of Order 22
CPC would be applicable in view of Section
10 of the Family Courts, Act, 1984.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondent has supported the impugned
order and submits that the Court below has
not committed any mistake in allowing the
aforesaid application as the property rights
would certainly be get affected from the
outcome of the present petition filed under
Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, if the
marriage is declared void. He has placed
reliance on a judgement of Hon'ble Division
Bench judgement of this Court in Garima
Singh Vs. Pratima Singh and another,
2023 (9) ADJ 101 (DB) by making
reference to paragraphs 37 to 48 of the
judgement.

8. We have considered the rival
submissions and have perused the record.

9. Before proceeding further, it would
be appropriate to take note of the relevant
provisions of law.

10. Sections 5 and 11 of the Hindu
Marriage Act reads as under:-

"5. Condition for a Hindu
Marriage

" A marriage may be solemnized
between any two Hindus, if the following
conditions are fulfilled, namely-

1.neither party has a spouse living
at the time of the marriage;

2. at the time of the marriage,
neither party-
5 All. Shatakshi Mishra Vs. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors.
1805

i) is incapable of giving a valid
consent to it in consequence of unsoundness
of mind; or

ii) though capable of giving a
valid consent, has been suffering from
mental disorder of such a kind or to such an
extent as to be unfit for marriage and the
procreation of children;
or

iii) has been subject to recurrent
attacks of insanity;

3. the bridegroom has completed
the age of twenty-one years and the bride,
the age of eighteen years at the time of the
marriage;

4. the parties are not within the
degrees of prohibited relationship unless the
custom or usage governing each of them
permits of a marriage between the two;

5. the parties are not sapindas of
each other, unless the custom or usage
governing each of them permits of a
marriage between the two;"

11. Void Marriage

"Any marriage solemnized after
the commencement of this Act shall be null
and void and may, on a petition presented by
either party 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."

11. Sections 7 and 10 of the Family
Courts Act, 1984 reads as under -

"7. Jurisdiction- (1) Subject to
the other provisions of this Act, a Family
Court shall -

(a) have and exercise all the
jurisdiction exercisable by any district court
or any subordinate civil court under any law
for the time being in force in respect of suits
and proceedings of the nature referred to in
the explanation; and

(b) be deemed, for the purposes of
exercising such jurisdiction under such law,
to be a district court or, as the case may be ,
such subordinate civil court for the area to
which the jurisdiction of the Family Court
extends.

Explanation - The suits and
proceedings referred to in this sub-section
are suits and proceedings of the following
nature, namely:-

(a) a suit or proceeding between
the parties to a marriage for a decree of
nullity of marriage (declaring the marriage
to be null and void or, as the case may be,
annulling the marriage) or restitution of
conjugal rights or judicial separation or
dissolution of marriage;

(b) a suit or proceeding for a
declaration as to the validity of a marriage
or as to the matrimonial status of any
person;

(c) a suit or proceeding between
the parties to a marriage with respect to the
property of the parties or of either of them;

(d) a suit or proceeding for an
order or injunction in circumstances arising
out of a marital relationship;

(e) a suit or proceeding for a
declaration as to the legitimacy of any
person;

(f) a suit or proceeding for
maintenance;

(g) a suit or proceeding in relation
to the guardianship of the person or the
custody of, or access to any minor.

(2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act, a Family Court shall also have
and exercise-

(a) the jurisdiction exercisable by
a Magistrate of the First Class under
Chapter IX ( relating to order for
maintenance of wife, children and parents)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2
of 1974); and
1806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(b) such other jurisdiction as may
be conferred on it by any other enactment.

10. Procedure generally.-

"(1)
Subject
to
the
other
provisions of this Act and the rules, the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (5 of 1908) and of any other law for the
time being in force shall apply to the suits
and proceedings other than the proceedings
under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before a Family
Court and for the purposes of the said
provisions of the Code, a Family Court shall
be deemed to be a civil court and shall have
all the powers of such court.

2) Subject to the other provisions
of this Act and the rules, the provisions of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of
1974) or the rules made thereunder, shall
apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX
of that Code before a Family Court.

(3) Nothing in sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) shall prevent a Family Court
from laying down its own procedure with a
view to arrive at a settlement in respect of
the subject-matter of the suit or proceedings
or at the truth of the facts alleged by the one
party and denied by the other."
(Emphasis Supplied)

12. Order 22 Rule 3 CPC reads as
under-

Order 22, Rule 3 of CPC

Rule 3 deals with the procedure in
case of death of one of several plaintiffs or
of sole plaintiff. It states that?

"(1) Where one of two or more
plaintiffs dies and the right to sue does not
survive to the surviving plaintiff or plaintiffs
alone, or a sole plaintiff or sole surviving
plaintiff dies and the right to the sue
survives, the Court, on an application made
in that behalf, shall cause the legal
representative of the deceased plaintiff to be
made a party and shall proceed with the suit.

(2) Where within the time limited
by law no application is made under subrule (1), the suit shall abate so far as the
deceased plaintiff is concerned, and, on the
application of the defendant, the Court may
award to him the costs which he may have
incurred in defending the suit, to be
recovered from the estate of the deceased
plaintiff."
(Emphasis Supplied)

13. It is not in dispute that the petition
under Section 11 of the Act was filed by the
husband and he unfortunately died during
pendency of the petition.

14.

Two
questions
arise
for
consideration in the present case: (1)
whether the provisions of CPC particularly
Order 22 CPC are applicable in the
proceedings before the Family court or not?;
and (2) whether the parents can be
substituted as legal representatives of the
deceased to pursue the proceedings pending
before the Family Court under Section 11 of
the Act?

15. Insofar as the first question is
concerned, a bare reading of the provisions
quoted above would clearly reflect that the
provisions
of
CPC
other
than
the
proceedings under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C.
would be applicable in all proceedings
pending before the Family Court and that for
the purpose of the said provision of the
Code, a family court shall be deemed to be a
Civil Court.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant
could not dispute the legal position.

17. Accordingly, the question no. 1 is
answered in affirmative and it is held that
5 All. Shatakshi Mishra Vs. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors.
1807
provisions of Order 22 CPC are applicable
in the proceedings pending before the
Family court under Section 11 of the Act.

18. Insofar as the second question is
concerned,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent has placed heavy reliance on the
judgement of this Court in Garima Singh
(supra) and submitted that the parents who
are legal representatives of the deceased
husband Deepak Mahendra Pnadey are
entitled to be made a party to pursue the
proceedings under Section 11 of the Act.

19. The question involved in Garima
Singh (supra) was that as to whether the first
wife has a right to seek declaration under
Section 11 of the Act that the marriage
performed by the husband with second wife
was a void marriage, in other words,
whether she is entitle to file a petition for
obtaining such declaration.

20.

After
considering
various
provisions of Sections 5, 9 and 11 of the Act
and Section 7 of the Family Court Act, it was
held that the Family Court has rightly
granted the right to the first wife to file an
application under Section 11 of the Act.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent
has referred to paragraphs 37 to 48 of
Garima Singh (supra). We have gone
through the entire judgement carefully.
22. Relevant paragraphs 37, 44 to 48 of
Garima Singh (supra) are quoted as under:

"37. The term "either party
thereto" shall be interpreted in harmony
with "against the other party". The inclusion
of the phrase "against the other party" was
intended to provide a clear and purposeful
understanding of the section's scope. The
provision aims to ensure that anyone
aggrieved by the solemnization of a second
marriage has the option to file a suit in the
family court, aligning with the objectives for
which the Family Courts Act, 1984, was
established.
The
underlying
intention
behind enacting the Family Courts Act,
1984 was to consolidate all litigation
pertaining to marital disputes, including
matters related to marriage, divorce,
custody, guardianship, property partition,
maintenance, and other familial suits, under
one
comprehensive
platform.
This
consolidation was aimed at facilitating the
efficient resolution of such cases.

44. The narrow interpretation
given to the phrase "either party thereto"
should not apply in cases where provisions
of social welfare legislation are invoked.
Such a restrictive interpretation would affect
the principle of equal protection of laws and
equality before the law, guaranteed under
Article 14 of the Constitution. It would also
negatively impact the rights of the first wife,
as guaranteed under Article 14 and the
provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

45. If the first wife is deprived of
seeking a remedy under Section 11 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, it would defeat the
very purpose and intent of the Act. The
protection offered to legally wedded wives
under sections 5, 11, and 12 of the Hindu
Marriage Act would become insignificant in
such a scenario.

46. Even if the meaning of the
phrase "either party thereto" is considered
to be unclear or ambiguous, the principle of
beneficial construction should be applied to
determine its intent. There is no justification
for interpreting section 11 in a way that
restricts its scope or narrows down its
meaning. The purpose of granting a decree
of nullity is to identify flaws in the marriage
and subsequently declare it as void.

47. In the process of beneficial
construction, the Court should lean towards
an interpretation that serves the interests of
1808 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justice and aligns with the broader
objectives of the law. By doing so, the Court
can ensure that the remedies available
under section 11 are not unduly limited, and
individuals seeking relief are not unjustly
deprived of their rights. The ultimate aim of
granting a decree of nullity is to annul a
marriage that is found to be invalid from its
inception, effectively treating it as if it never
existed. Therefore, it is essential to interpret
the relevant provisions in a manner that
facilitates a fair and just outcome for the
parties involved.

48. In conclusion, we uphold the
family court's decision, which grants the
first wife, the respondent in this case, the
right to file an application under section 11
of the Hindu Marriage Act. This application
seeks the declaration of the second marriage
as illegal and void. The Court affirms the
validity of the impugned ruling, allowing the
first wife to pursue legal recourse to nullify
the second marriage on the grounds of its
illegality. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed."

 (Emphasis Supplied)

23. In Garima Singh (supra) the Court
was mainly considering the terms "either
party thereto" and it was held that the narrow
interpretation given to the phrase "either
party thereto" should not apply in cases
where
provisions
of
social
welfare
legislation are invoked. It was also observed
that if the first wife is deprived of seeking a
remedy under Section 11 of the Act, it would
defeat the very purpose and intent of the Act.
The protection offered to legally wedded
wives under Sections 5, 11 and 12 of the Act
would become insignificant in such a
scenario. It was also observed that the Court
should lean towards an interpretation that
serves the interprets of justice and aligns
with the broader objectives of the law and by
doing so, the Court can ensure that the
remedies available under Section 11 are not
unduly limited and the individuals seeking
relief are not unjustly deprived of their
rights.

24. It is needless to say that ultimately
the aim of granting a decree of nullity is to
annul a marriage that is found to be invalid
from its inception effectively treating it as if
it never existed. In Garima Singh (supra),
the first wife has claimed that her marriage
was subsisting when second marriage was
performed by the husband and as such, in the
light of the provisions of Section 5 of the
Act, the second marriage performed by the
husband with the appellant-Garima Singh
was void ab initio. Indisputably, the property
rights are always involved in such cases
when the marriage itself is being claimed as
void ab initio. Therefore, clearly, the rights
of the parties who are legal representatives
of the deceased husband are also affected.
Hence, in the present case, the parents have
a right to get a declaration that the marriage
between Shatakshi Mishra, the appellant
herein and their son was in violation of
provisions of Section 5 of the Act as their
property rights are directly affected and they
have a right to be made a party to the petition
under Section 11 of the Act after the death of
their son.

25. To draw further strength to our
reasoning and conclusion we would also like
to refer to certain other judgements of
Hon'ble
Apex
Court.
In
Maharani
Kusumkumari and another vs. Smt.
Kusumkumari
Jadeja
and
another,
(1991) 1 SCC 582, the second wife was
permitted to file the petition under Section
11 of the Act as the property rights of the
family members including the legitimacy of
children of void and voidable marriage
(section 16 of the Act) would also be
involved in a case of claim for property.
While interpreting Section 11 of the Act (as
5 All. Shatakshi Mishra Vs. Deepak Mahendra Pandey (Deceased) & Ors.
1809
it stood prior to amendment in 1976), it was
held that the petition filed after death of
other
spouse
was
maintainable.
The
legislative intent was gathered from reading
of Section 16 and 1976 amendment as well
as Law Commission's report. It was also
held that beneficent construction is required
insofar as the interpretation of statute is
concerned. In the aforesaid case, the
appellant-Maharani Kusumkumari married
in the year 1960, however, due to strained
relationship couple started living separately.
Subsequently, the husband re-married the
respondent-Smt.
Kusumkumari
Jadeja
therein without legally separating from the
appellant and the couple had several issues.
The husband died in the year 1974. The
appellant-Maharani Kusumkumari filed an
application
for
grant
of
Letters
of
Administration and the respondent applied
for probate on the basis of an alleged Will,
which was denied by the appellant. During
the pendency of the proceedings, the
respondent filed a petition under Section 11
of the Act for declaring her marriage as a
nullity. The appellant had challenged the
maintainability of the petition under Section
11 of the Act on the ground that the marriage
could not be declared nullity after death of
Maharaja. The trial Court and the High
Court have rejected the appellant's plea.
After discussions, in paragraph 10 of the
said judgement, it was held as under;

"10. Even if it be assumed that the
meaning of the section was not free from
ambiguity,
the
rule
of
beneficial
construction is called for in ascertaining its
meaning. The intention of the legislature in
enacting Section 16 was to protect the
legitimacy of the children who would have
been legitimate if the Act had not been
passed in 1955. There is no reason to
interpret Section 11 in a manner which
would narrow down its field. With respect to
the nature of the proceeding, what the court
has to do in an application under Section 11
is not bring about any change in the marital
status of the parties. The effect of granting a
decree of nullity is to discover the flaw in the
marriage at the time of its performance and
accordingly to grant a decree declaring it to
be void. we, therefore, hold that an
application under section11 before its
amendment in 1976, was maintainable at the
instance of a party to the marriage even
after the death of the other spouse.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with
costs."

(Emphasis Supplied)

26. The appeal was dismissed and the
maintainability of petition filed by the
respondent-second wife under Section 11 of
the Act was held to be maintainable.

27. It can, therefore, be safely
concluded from bare perusal of the aforesaid
judgement that the Legal Representative
who is not "either of the parties" and was not
one of the spouse to the marriage in question
can pursue the petition filed under Section
11 of the Act that marriage should be
declared
void
and
therefore,
their
application filed under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC
would be maintainable.

28. We would also like to refer to
another judgement. Although the facts of
that case are different, however, a perusal of
the same also reflects that such proceedings
can be pursued by the legal representatives
of the deceased plaintiff. In the case of
Samar Kumar Roy (Dead) through Legal
Representative (Mother) vs. Jharna Bera,
(2017) 9 SCC 591, the plaintiff sought
declaration that the defendant was not his
legally married wife and that she had no
right to claim him as her husband as his
alleged marriage with defendant was not
1810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
legal and valid, and thus, claimed a
permanent injunction restraining defendant
from claiming plaintiff as her husband and
temporary injunction. It is noticeable that
the suit was not based on any ground
specified under Section 11 or Section 12 of
the Act or under the provisions of Special
Marriage Act. In the aforesaid case, after the
death of the plaintiff, his mother applied
under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC to be added
as a legal representative of the plaintiff. The
civil suit was filed on the regular side and
was not filed under the provisions of Hindu
Marriage Act or the Special Marriage Act. It
was held that the suit was not barred either
under Section under Section 34 of the Specific
Relief Act or under the provisions of Sections
7 and 8 of the Family Court Act. It was held
that the High Court erred in setting aside the
order allowing the application for substitution
of legal representative on the ground that after
death of the plaintiff no right to sue survived
in favour of the plaintiff's mother. In the
aforesaid case, provisions of Section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, Sections 7 and 8 of the
Family Court Act and Sections 11 and 12 of
the Hindu Marriage Act were considered.
While interpreting such provisions, Hon'ble
Apex Court has referred to another judgment
in the case of Yallawwa vs. Shantavva,
(1997) 11 SCC 159. Paragraph 17 of Samar
Kumar Roy (supra) is quoted as under:

"17. This Court has referred to
personal causes of action and held in
Yallawwa v. Shantavva which reads as
follows: (SCC pp. 168-69, para 6)"

"6??. Save and except the personal
cause of action which dies with the deceased
on the principle of actio personalis moritur
cum persona i.e. a personal cause of action
dies with the person, all the rest of the causes
of action which have an impact on proprietary
rights and socio-legal status of the parties
cannot be said to have died with such a
person."
(Emphasis Supplied)

29. In this background, it is clear that in
such matters the declaration would have an
impact on proprietary rights and socio-legal
status of the parties cannot be said to have died
with such a person.

30. In view of the discussions made
hereinabove, it can safely be concluded that
after death of the husband who has filed a
petition under Section 11 of the Act the parents
have a right to be substituted as legal
representatives under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC to
pursue the proceedings. The second question
is also accordingly answered in affirmative.

31. In such view of the matter, it is clear
that if it is being claimed that the marriage is
void, legal representative can be impleaded /
substituted to pursue the petition filed under
Section 11 of the Act.

32. In view of the above, we find no
illegality or infirmity in the order impugned.

33. The appeal is devoid of merit and is
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1810
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4729 of 2024

Suresh Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents