# Smt. Santoshi v. State of U.P. and others - **Citation:** (2007) 1 ILRA 213 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2006-11-16 - **Case number:** Habeas Corpus Petition No. 47785 of 2006 - **Bench:** Vinod Prasad - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-santoshi-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40829 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure-S. 397 (1)- Criminal Revision-offence under section 323/34 IPC-sentenced with six month R.I. with 500/- fine-conviction order passed in the year 1992-more than 14 years passed undoubtly the conviction cemented by concurrent finding of factsrevisionist remained in jail for about one month-nothing to suggest regarding any mis happening by either side during this period-conviction reduced to already undergone with fine of Rs.4000/- on each-payable to the injured-revision party allowed. ## Text 1 All] Smt. Santoshi V. State of U.P. and others 213 since the order under challenge did not amount to case decided and also the same being an interlocutory order, therefore, the revision was not maintainable. 18. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the District Judge. The petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 19. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 20. Since the Suit is of 1986, it is desirable that the trial court shall decide the same expeditiously, say within a period of six months. Petition Dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 47785 of 2006 Smt. Santoshi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ram Chandra Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Constitution of India, Art. 226-Habeas Corpus Petition-scope under writ jurisdiction-considering the statement of corpus as well as the welfare of two very young infants the corpus being 19 years of age-at the time of marriage-living happily with her husband-her father restrained to resort any illegal means for their separation-pending criminal case quashed-with consequential directions. Held: Para 3 In view of the statement made by Smt. Santoshi she is allowed to go with her husband Manoj Verma as the interest of justice demands that the mother of two infants who has expressed her deep desire to live a happy life with her husband, must be allowed to go and live with her husband and children. The father Om Prakash is hereby restrained not to interfere into the marital life of Smt. Santoshi and Manaj Verma. (Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.) 1. Corpus Smt. Santoshi is personally present today in court who has been identified by his father Sri Om Prakash Gupta who is also present in the court. The statement of Smt. Santoshi was recorded in open court today, which was verified to be correct by her and after said verification she has put her thumb impression on it. She clearly stated that she is aged about 24 years and she had married with Manoj Verma on her own accord. At the time of marriage she was 19 years of age. She also expressed the desire that she would like to go with her husband Manoj Verma. She further stated that she has got two issues Jahanwi and Dinkar aged about 2 years four months and one year respectively. She also stated that she is very happy in her family and with her husband. (She has brought both the infants in the court today. Her husband Manoj Verma is also present in court). 2. Father of Smt. Santoshi, namely, Om Prakash Gupta, the petitioner who is also present in court today raised serious objection to the said request of Smt. Santoshi and prayed that the couple be sent to Jail. 214 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007 I have heard both the sides. 3. In view of the statement made by Smt. Santoshi she is allowed to go with her husband Manoj Verma as the interest of justice demands that the mother of two infants who has expressed her deep desire to live a happy life with her husband, must be allowed to go and live with her husband and children. The father Om Prakash is hereby restrained not to interfere into the marital life of Smt. Santoshi and Manaj Verma. 4. This Habeas Corpus petition now does not relate with two lives only but it relates with the life of two young adult persons and two very young infants, who require all the love affection and caring of both of their parents. In exercise of my power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I direct the father Om Prakalsh Gupta not to resort any illegal means for the separation of couple. 5. It is stated that a criminal case has been lodged against them which is pending before CJM, Allahabad arising out of Crime No. 359 of 2001, U/S 363, 366 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, district Allahabad. In view of the order passed by me today, I also quash the criminal prosecution of Manoj Verma and Smt. Santoshi arising out of aforesaid crime number. 6. Smt. Santoshi and her husband Manoj Venna are directed to get a certified copy of this order and to appear before the court of CJM Allahabad within a period of one week from today. The CJM, Allahabad will pass a order in accordance this order and will close the prosecution. 7. The SHO P.S. Civil Lines, Allahabad is personally present in court today. He is not needed to be present further. His presence is exempted. Since I have quashed the criminal prosecution of Smt. Santoshi and her husband Manoj Verma, no coercive measure, which has been issued against them, shall be executed against them. Let a copy of this order be sent to CJM, Allahabad for his intimation forthwith. Petition disposed of. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.10.2006 BEFORE THE HON'BLE VINOD PRASAD, J. Criminal Revision No. 4501 .Of 2006 Lok Bahadur and others ...Revisionists Versus State of U.P. & another...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Revisionists: Sri S.A. Saroj Sri Mahesh Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure-S. 397 (1)- Criminal Revision-offence under section 323/34 IPC-sentenced with six month R.I. with 500/- fine-conviction order passed in the year 1992-more than 14 years passed undoubtly the conviction cemented by concurrent finding of factsrevisionist remained in jail for about one month-nothing to suggest regarding any mis happening by either side during this period-conviction reduced to already undergone with fine of Rs.4000/- on each-payable to the injured-revision party allowed.