# Smt. Kusum Yadav & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 215 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2015-11-04 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-kusum-yadav-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43444 - **Pages:** 3 ## Text 4 All. Smt. Kusum Yadav & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 215 for repayment on long term deposits, as that Govt. may by notification specify. The Authorities have no choice but to grant interest as notified by the Government. 21. Having due regard to the facts of the case, it is provided that the first respondent Appellate Authority/Deputy Labour Commissioner shall decide both the appeals afresh, the respective parties undertake to file their written statement within fifteen days from today, in the event of compliance, it is expected that the appellate authority shall conclude and decide the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks thereafter, the order dated 20 July 2015 passed in both the appeals is set aside. 22. Subject to the above, the writ petition is allowed. 23. No order as to costs. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Writ C No.- 60941 Of 2015 Smt. Kusum Yadav & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: Shiv Babu Dubey Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Kaushalendra Kumar HELD: 1. Petitioners sought protection alleging they were majors who married of free will, but serious allegations emerged during proceedings. 2. Petitioner No. 1, when produced before the Court, categorically stated that petitioner No. 2 forcibly took her away, detained her for many days, and coerced her into signing the affidavit and vakalatnama. 3. She denied having married petitioner No. 2 and expressed her desire to return to her parents. 4. Her demeanor and statements in Court convinced the Court that the petition was not filed out of her free and voluntary act. 216 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 5. There was no valid marriage between the petitioners; any alleged marriage is declared null and void. 6. Petitioner No. 1 was allowed to go with her parents. 7. Petitioner No. 2 was found to have kept petitioner No. 1 in illegal detention. 8. The writ petition was dismissed with costs of ₹25,000, reduced by half on request of counsel. 9. The Collector, Jaunpur, was directed to recover the cost from petitioner No. 2 as arrears of land revenue within three months and submit compliance. Case Law Discussed: None. (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India by two petitioners claiming protection to their married life on the ground that they are both majors and have married of their own free will, but their life is being disturbed by the respondents. 2. On the first date when the petition was taken up, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions received by him had informed the Court that a First Information Report/N.C.R. has been lodged against petitioner no. 2 under Section 498 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners was accordingly directed to file an affidavit of the petitioner no. 2 clarifying his marital status at the time of the alleged marriage with the petitioner no. 1. 4. Accordingly, affidavit of petitioner no. 2 was filed stating he had married petitioner no. 1 and he was not married to any one earlier. 5. Sri Kaushlendra Kumar, learned counsel who had put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5, had stated that the petitioner no. 1 is in illegal detention of petitioner no. 2. She had not married him. The petitioner no. 1 had forced her to sign the affidavit filed in support of the petition. 6. In view of the above allegations made by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5, petitioner no. 1 was directed to be produced before the Court. 7. The petitioner no. 1 is present in Court. She has been identified by counsel for respondent no. 5, who is representing the father of the petitioner no. 1. Her identity is not disputed by the counsel for the petitioners. 8. She states that she knows petitioner no. 2. He is the person who had forcibly taken her away and had detained her for many days. He had forced her to put signatures on the affidavit as well as 4 All. Branch Manager, Prathama Bank & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 217 vakalatnama. She had not married him at all. She also stated that she wants to go with her parents and live with them. 9. The demeanor of petitioner no. 1 in making the above statement strengthens the belief of the Court at her statement is true and correct and that she has been pressurised to sign and file this petition. The filing of this petition on her behalf is not her free and independent act. 10. In view of the statement of the petitioner no. 1 given before this Court, it is apparent that petitioner no. 2 had kept petitioner no. 1 in illegal detention and there is no marriage between the petitioners with the free will of both of them. 11. Accordingly, the marriage as alleged in the petition of the petitioners if any is declared to be a nullity. The petitioner no. 1 is permitted to go with her parents to her home. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- which has been reduced by the Court to half on the persuasion of the counsel appearing for petitioners. It shall be realized by the Collector Jaunpur from petitioner no. 2 as arrears of land revenue within three months and a report of realizing the same shall be submitted to the Court. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Writ C No.- 67985 Of 2013 Branch Manager, Prathama Bank & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for Petitioners: P.K. Singhal Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Neelesh Kumar Mishra, R.K.Pandey, Sharad Sharma, Vikrant Pandey The petitioners are aggrieved by the award dated 30.01.2013 published on 08.10.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court U.P. at Rampur. The Labour Court award held the termination of the services of respondent no. 3 w.e.f 16.10.2009 from the post of Water Boy to be illegal and invalid and directed for his reinstatement with full back wages. The basic issue which arises for consideration in this petition is about the applicability of the U.P. Act and the initiation of proceedings thereunder in respect of the employees of the concerned Bank. Labour Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear and decide the dispute between the