# Smt. Meenashi @ Pinki and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1343
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-09
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 42114 of 2012
- **Bench:** Ravindra Singh, Anil Kumar Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-meenashi-pinki-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42403
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-petitioner No. 1 alleging
herself as major and living as husband
and wife after marriage by Arya Samajchallenging the order passed by S.D.M.
by which send in Nari Niketan-according
to High School marksheet petitioner No.
1
being
minor-but
in
facts
and
circumstances of case being married
with Narendra Singh-she may join the
company of her husband Narendra or her
parents- detention of Nari Niketan not
proper-quashed.

Held: Para-6

This court is cautious about the welfare
of
the
corpus.
The
learned
SDM
Hasanpur
passed
two
orders
dated
24.6.2012 and 21.7.2012 by which she
has been sent to Nari Niktan Moradabad
which does not appear to be proper
therefore, the orders dated 24.6.2012
and 21.7.2012 are hereby set aside. The
corpus is directed to be released from
Nari Niketan Muzaffarnagar forthwith in
the presence of the Officer-in-Charge of
P.S. Hasanpur, the corpus shall be free to
go to his father's house or her husband
Narendra Singh's house, the Officer-incharge of P.S. Hasanpur shall ensure that
no hurt may be caused to the corpus
either at her parent's house or her
husband's house.

## Text

3 All] Smt. Meenashi @ Pinki and another V. State of U.P. and others
1343
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Habeas Corpus Writ Petition
No. 42114 of 2012

Smt. Meenashi @ Pinki and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajiv Sisodia
A.G.A.

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Petition-petitioner No. 1 alleging
herself as major and living as husband
and wife after marriage by Arya Samajchallenging the order passed by S.D.M.
by which send in Nari Niketan-according
to High School marksheet petitioner No.
1
being
minor-but
in
facts
and
circumstances of case being married
with Narendra Singh-she may join the
company of her husband Narendra or her
parents- detention of Nari Niketan not
proper-quashed.

Held: Para-6

This court is cautious about the welfare
of
the
corpus.
The
learned
SDM
Hasanpur
passed
two
orders
dated
24.6.2012 and 21.7.2012 by which she
has been sent to Nari Niktan Moradabad
which does not appear to be proper
therefore, the orders dated 24.6.2012
and 21.7.2012 are hereby set aside. The
corpus is directed to be released from
Nari Niketan Muzaffarnagar forthwith in
the presence of the Officer-in-Charge of
P.S. Hasanpur, the corpus shall be free to
go to his father's house or her husband
Narendra Singh's house, the Officer-incharge of P.S. Hasanpur shall ensure that
no hurt may be caused to the corpus
either at her parent's house or her
husband's house.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri V.P. Gupta, learned
counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A.
for the State of U.P. and Sri Rajiv Sisodia,
appearing on behalf of respondent no.4
Vijai Pal Singh.

2. This Habeas Corpus Writ petition
has been filed on behalf of Smt. Meenashi
@ Pinki by petitioner no 2 Tek Chandra
with the prayers:-

1.Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 21.7.2012 passed by respondent
no.2 (Annexure no.3 to the writ petition).

2.issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature of habeas corpus directing the
respondent no. 3 to produce the corpus
before this Hon'ble Court and set him free
on her own desire.

3.Issue any other writ order or
direction in favour of the petitioner, which
this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the
case.

4.To award the cost of the present writ
petition to the petitioner.

3. The facts of this case is that an FIR
has been lodged by Bal Kishan on
22.6.2012 at 8.05 P.M. in respect of the
incident allegedly occurred on 22.6.2012 at
about 6.30 P.M., it has been lodged against
Sri Chandra, Jai Chandra sons of Atar
1344 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
Singh, Manoj brother in law of Sri Chandra,
Narendra, Vijay Singh and driver of Qualis
Vehicle under section 264 I.P.C. alleging
therein that his son Tek Chandra, petitioner
No.2 was forcibly taken away by the above
mentioned accused persons, his son Tek
Chandra was abducted because they were
having suspicion of abduction of Km.
Meenakshi. Tek Chandra was working at
the house of Vijay Pal Singh, the father of
the corpus for the last many years, he was
residing at his house also, due to which he
developed
relationship
with
corpus
Meenakshi, about 2 months prior to the
lodging FIR, Meenakshi was taken away by
him but she was taken back from Delhi and
she was handed over to her family
members. About one month prior to lodging
the FIR, the corpus Meenakshi has been
married
with
Narendra,
the
corpus
Meenakshi left her Sasural and had gone to
some unknown place. The corpus was
recovered by the police and all the accused
persons sent to jail. The petitioner no. 2 was
also challaned under section 151 Cr.P.C.
The corpus was sent to Nari Niketan
Moradabad. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 2
and mother of petitioner no. 1 moved an
applications before the SDM Hasanpur for
releasing the petitioner in their favour, on
those applications, both the parties and
petitioner no. 1 were summoned by SDM
Hasanpur who recorded the statement of
corpus on 21.7.2012 in which she stated that
she was aged about 19 years, she was an
educated girl, she had passed High School
Examination, in the marksheet the date of
birth 1997 was mentioned, she was having
the physical relationship with Tek Chandra.
Tek Chandra was belonging to Saini caste
and she was belonging to Chauhan caste.
She remained along with Tek Chandra in
Delhi for about a month. Her family
members have developed the pressure upon
the family members of Tek Chandra then
she and Tek Chandra came from Delhi. She
did not want to go with her parents, she had
performed the marriage with Tek Chandra
in a temple of Delhi. The marriage
certificate was also issued from the temple,
the same has been torn by her family
members. She wanted to go with Tek
Chandra. She was having the pregnancy of
three months. She further stated that her
date of birth is of year 1995. The S.D.M.
Hasanpur passed the order dated 21.7.2012
by which she was sent to Preveshalay/ Nari
Niketan, Moradabad. According to the
order dated 21.7.2012 the date of birth of
the corpus was 10.12.1995 recorded in the
marksheet issued by Lala Satya Prakash
Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Hasanpur. There
was apprehension of breech of peace, on
account of the custody of the corpus and the
corpus was about 17 years that is why she
was sent to Nari Niketan.

4. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the corpus had
performed the marriage with petitioner No.
2 Tek Chandra, she remained in his
company at Delhi and she developed the
physical relationship with him with her free
will and consent and she wanted to go in the
company of her husband Tek Chandra, she
is major and she is pregnant. Her detention
in Nari Niketan is illegal, she may be
released forthwith from Nari Niketan and
she may be given in the custody of
petitioner No. 2 Tek Chandra who is her
natural guardian being her husband.

5. In reply of the above contention, it
is submitted by learned A.G.A., Sri Rajiv
Sisodiya
and
Sri
Shashank
Kumar
appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 that
according to the FIR lodged by father of the
petitioner No. 2 the corpus has already been
married with Narendra son of Jai Singh, the
corpus remained at the house of the
3 All] Smt. Meenashi @ Pinki and another V. State of U.P. and others
1345
Narendra as his wife but she fled away from
there. After marriage with Narendra son of
Jai Singh she may be handed over either to
Narendra son of Jai Singh or to the parents
of the corpus. In any case she may not be
handed over to the petitioner No. 2 Tek
Chandra
who
has
developed
illicit
relationship with the corpus and without
divorce the corpus may not perform the
second marriage with Tek Chandra. In the
present case no divorce has taken place.
Narendra the husband of the corpus has
already been summoned by this court who
clearly stated that he wanted to have his
wife. The father of the corpus has also
stated that his daughter Meenakshi has been
married with Narendra Singh and the
marriage of the corpus has not been
performed with Tek Chandra. The learned
Magistrate concerned has committed error
by sending the corpus to Nari Niketan, she
may be handed over to her husband
Narendra Singh.

6.

Considering
the
facts,
circumstances of the case, submissions
made by learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned A.G.A., Sri Rajiv Singh Sisodiya,
Sri Shashank Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent No. 4 Vijay Pal Singh and from
the from the perusal of the record it appears
that in the present case the corpus has been
sent to Nari Niketan, Moradabad from
where she was summoned by this court, she
was produced before this court on
20.9.2012. On query made by the court the
corpus stated that she was not knowing the
Narendra Singh, her marriage was not
performed with him, she had performed the
marriage with Tek Chandra in Arya Samaj
Mandir, Hariyali Baag, Delhi, her date of
birth was 10.12.1993, she had passed high
school examination whereas her father
Vijay Pal also appeared before this court on
20.9.2012 who stated that the corpus was
married with Narendra Singh according to
Hindu Marriage rites, after marriage she
remained in the house of Narendra Singh
for about two months, thereafter she fled
away from his house. Narendra Singh also
appeared before this court on 20.9.2012. On
query made by the court he stated that he
was married with corpus, he wanted to have
the corpus, she may be released in his
favour. The statement of the corpus was
recorded by S.D.M. Hasanpur on 24.6.2012
also, its copy has not been filed by the
petitioner, its copy has been filed by learned
A.G.A. as C.A.-1 of supplementary counter
affidavit in which she stated that she was
having love affairs with Tek Chandra, she
had gone to Delhi in his company about
three months back where she remained for
three
months,
her
family
members
pressurising the family members of Tek
Chandra then she came from Delhi to
Hasanpur and she was handed over to her
family members, she had appeared in the
High School Examination, in education
certificates her date of birth was mentioned
as of year 1995, in fact she was aged about
20 years, her marriage was performed by
her parents with Narendra Singh, she was
living in the company of Narendra Singh
but after taking the liquor she was expelled
by Narendra Singh from his house then she
went to the railway station, Gajraula and
there after she met a with person, who was
knowing Tek Chandra, along with him she
reached Hasanpur and came to the police
station, Hasanpur from where she was
produced before the court of S.D.M., she
wanted to go in the company of Tek
Chandra, after considering her statement
she was sent to Nari Niketan by S.D.M.,
Hasanpur on 24.6.2012. The statement of
corpus was recorded by S.D.M. Hasanpur
on 24.6.2012.The order dated 24.6.2012
passed by S.D.M., Hasanpur has not been
deliberately filed by the petitioner because
1346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
the corpus had admitted that she was
married
with
Narendra
Singh.
The
subsequent statement of the corpus recorded
by the SDM Hasanpur on 27.7.2012, does
not show that she was already married with
Narendra Singh. The petitioner has not
come with clean hand. The corpus is a
minor, according to the school record, she
herself has stated that in the school record,
her date of birth is of 1995 and she has
already married with Narendra Singh. The
married wife cannot be handed over to any
other persons for having illicit relationship.
The corpus does not want to go with her
parents and with her husband Narendra
Singh, in such circumstance, she may not be
left at the mercy of others because she is not
a fully matured girl and is not having any
employment. Her natural guardian are her
parents and even she has nowhere stated in
her statement recorded on 24.6.2012 and
21.7.2012 by the S.D.M. Hasanpur that she
was having any danger to her life from her
parents whereas she has made an allegation
that her husband Narendra expelled her from
the house after taking liquor. According to
the High School marksheet her date of birth
is 10.12.1995, she is minor, her father is
ready to take her in his custody. She may not
be detained in Nari Niketan for a long period
and no fruitful purpose may be served in
keeping her in Nari Niketan. This court is
cautious about the welfare of the corpus. The
learned SDM Hasanpur passed two orders
dated 24.6.2012 and 21.7.2012 by which she
has been sent to Nari Niktan Moradabad
which does not appear to be proper therefore,
the orders dated 24.6.2012 and 21.7.2012 are
hereby set aside. The corpus is directed to be
released from Nari Niketan Muzaffarnagar
forthwith in the presence of the Officer-inCharge of P.S. Hasanpur, the corpus shall be
free to go to his father's house or her husband
Narendra Singh's house, the Officer-incharge of P.S. Hasanpur shall ensure that no
hurt may be caused to the corpus either at
her parent's house or her husband's house.
In case, the officer-in-charge of P.S.
Hasanpur is reported that she is not properly
behaved or maintained either by her parents
their family members or her husband as the
case may be legal action shall be taken
against such persons/persons.

7. With this direction this petition is
finally disposed of.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51133 of 2008

Ravindra Pal Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri R.M.Pandey

Civil
Services
Regulations-Regulation
351-A-Disciplinary
Proceeding-after
3
years
of
retirement-for
alleged
misconduct relating to year 1998-2000nothing whisper in counter affidavit
about
pendency
of
any
proceeding
during
service
period-charge
sheetquashed direction release entire post
retiral benefits issued.

Held: Para-13

The petitioner was a technician and he
retired in the year 2005. After three
years of his retirement the memorandum
of charge has been issued to him