# Smt. Sonam & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 926
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-07
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 36027 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sonam-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52773
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

non-interference can be granted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to petitioners
claiming to be in a live-in relationship, when
petitioner no.1 is a legally wedded wife of
another person and no decree of divorce has
been passed by a competent court.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Live-in relationship - Protection
sought from interference - Petitioner no.1
admittedly legally wedded wife of another
person - No decree of divorce - Relationship
during subsistence of marriage - Whether
protection can be granted - Relationship
amounting to bigamy - Ss. 494, 495 IPC -
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S. 17 - Held:
Protection cannot be granted.
HELD:
Mandamus can be issued only when the
petitioner has a subsisting legal right and a
corresponding legal duty exists on the part of
the State - Right to personal liberty is not
absolute - Freedom of one person ends where
the statutory right of another begins - Till a
decree of divorce is passed, the marriage
subsists in the eye of law - Any relationship or
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage may constitute an offence under
Sections 494/495 IPC - Such relationship does
not fall within the phrase "live-in relationship" or
"relationship in the nature of marriage" - Grant
of protection would amount to protection
against commission of a penal offence - Writ of
mandamus cannot be issued contrary to law or
to defeat a statutory or penal provision -
Petitioners do not have a legally protected and
judicially enforceable right to seek mandamus -
Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 12, 15, 18, 19,
20] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Asha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and
Others, Writ-C No. 18743 of 2020;
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC
469;
Director of Settlement, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao,
(2002) 4 SCC 638;
Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183;
Smt. Aneeta v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C
No. 14443 of 2021;

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

List of Keyword
Live-in relationship; relationship in the nature of
marriage;
subsisting
marriage;
decree
of
divorce; bigamy; writ of mandamus; absence of
legal right; statutory right of spouse; limits of
personal liberty; protection under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

CASE ARISING FROM
NIL

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Imaran Ahmad.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

## Text

926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
act when such voids result in the denial of
equality, dignity, and non-discrimination. The
present case exemplifies how the silence of the
legislature and the inaction of the executive in
implementing the mandate of the 2019 Act and
the 2020 Rules have perpetuated systemic
exclusion of transgender persons. The failure of
the appropriate Government to formulate
inclusive
policies,
constitute
redressal
mechanisms, and ensure safe and equitable
access
to
educational
and
employment
opportunities,
constitutes
not
a
mere
administrative lapse but a violation of the
constitutional rights. It is, therefore, incumbent
upon this Court to remind the State that the
promise of equality under the Constitution is
not a passive assurance but an active
obligation, one that demands continuous
vigilance and affirmative measures to translate
the guarantees of the Constitution into tangible
and transformative realities for all persons,
including transgender individuals."

 (VII) A Coordinate Bench of this
Court at Lucknow has in similar circumstances
directed the authorities to change the name in
educational documents Vedant Maurya alias
Kumari Soni (supra) and for reference relevant
part of judgment is reproduced hereinafter:

 " 4. याजचकाकताथ के पररवतथन जलंग के आिार पर
उ०प्र० शासन द्वारा जनवास प्रमाण-पत्र तर्ा िाजत प्रमाण-पत्र जनगथत हो
चुका है। याजचकाकताथ ने जवपक्षी सं०2 तर्ा 3 को संशोजित अंक-पत्र
तर्ा प्रमाण-पत्र प्रस्तुत करने के जलए प्रार्थना-पत्र जदया है, जिस पर अभी
तक कोई कायथवाही नहीं हुई है। याजचकाकताथ की जवद्वान अजिवक्ता ने
जशवन्या पाण्डेय बनाम उ०प्र० राज्य (2022) 1 All LJ 276 के
जनणथय का आश्रय जलया।

 5. जवद्वान अपर मुख्य स्र्ायी अजिवक्ता ने कहा जक
ट्रांसिेण्डर व्यजक्त (अजिकारों का संरक्षण) अजिजनयम, 2019 में ऐसी
पररजस्र्जतयों के संबंि में वैिाजनक प्राजविान जकये गये हैं। याजचकाकताथ
उपरोक्त अजिजनयम की िारा 2 (ट) में दी गयी ट्रांसिेण्डर व्यजक्त की
पररभाषा में आता है। अजिजनयम की िारा 5 के अनुसार याजचकाकताथ
को जिला मजिस्ट्रेट को ट्रांसिेण्डर व्यजक्त का पहचान प्रमाण-पत्र जनगथत
जकये िाने के जलए प्रार्थना-पत्र देने का प्राजविान है जकन्तु याजचकाकताथ ने
अभी तक उपरोक्त प्राजविान के अंतगथत कोई प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत नहीं
जकया है। अजिजनयम की िारा 6 तर्ा 7 के अनुसार िारा 5 के अंतगथत
प्रार्थना-पत्र प्रस्तुत जकये िाने के उपरान्त ही जिलाजिकारी ट्रांसिेण्डर
व्यजक्त का प्रमाण-पत्र जनगथत करेंगे तर्ा उसी के आिार पर शैजक्षक पररषद
अंक-पत्र तर्ा प्रमाण-पत्र में आवश्यक पररवतथन करना सुजनजित कर
सकते हैं।"

 (VIII) Similarly in K. Prithika
Yashini (supra); Arun Kumar (supra); S.
Swapna
(Transgender)
(supra);
K.
Gowtham Subramaniyam (supra); Shri
Vinod H.N. (supra); Poojitha B.P. (supra);
Christina Lobo (supra); Jeeva (supra); and,
X. vs. State of Uttarakhand (supra) different
High Courts have passed directions for strict
implementation of provisions of Act, 2019 and
Rules, 2020 in the benefit of Transgenders to
reduce the possibility of discrimination.

 6. In view of above, the writ petition
is allowed. Impugned order dated 08.04.2025 is
hereby set aside. Concerned respondents are
directed to act in accordance with law and on
basis of application filed by petitioner, the
required change shall be made in educational
documents of petitioner and fresh educational
marks sheet/ certificates be issued to petitioner
within a period of eight weeks from today.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 926
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 36027 of 2025

Smt. Sonam & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
11 All. Smt. Sonam & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
927
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Imaran Ahmad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a writ of mandamus for protection and
non-interference can be granted under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to petitioners
claiming to be in a live-in relationship, when
petitioner no.1 is a legally wedded wife of
another person and no decree of divorce has
been passed by a competent court.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - Live-in relationship - Protection
sought from interference - Petitioner no.1
admittedly legally wedded wife of another
person - No decree of divorce - Relationship
during subsistence of marriage - Whether
protection can be granted - Relationship
amounting to bigamy - Ss. 494, 495 IPC -
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S. 17 - Held:
Protection cannot be granted.
HELD:
Mandamus can be issued only when the
petitioner has a subsisting legal right and a
corresponding legal duty exists on the part of
the State - Right to personal liberty is not
absolute - Freedom of one person ends where
the statutory right of another begins - Till a
decree of divorce is passed, the marriage
subsists in the eye of law - Any relationship or
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage may constitute an offence under
Sections 494/495 IPC - Such relationship does
not fall within the phrase "live-in relationship" or
"relationship in the nature of marriage" - Grant
of protection would amount to protection
against commission of a penal offence - Writ of
mandamus cannot be issued contrary to law or
to defeat a statutory or penal provision -
Petitioners do not have a legally protected and
judicially enforceable right to seek mandamus -
Writ petition dismissed. [Paras 12, 15, 18, 19,
20] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Asha Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and
Others, Writ-C No. 18743 of 2020;
D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC
469;
Director of Settlement, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao,
(2002) 4 SCC 638;
Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183;
Smt. Aneeta v. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C
No. 14443 of 2021;

List of Acts
Constitution of India;
Indian Penal Code, 1860;
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

List of Keyword
Live-in relationship; relationship in the nature of
marriage;
subsisting
marriage;
decree
of
divorce; bigamy; writ of mandamus; absence of
legal right; statutory right of spouse; limits of
personal liberty; protection under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

CASE ARISING FROM
NIL

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Imaran Ahmad.
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri Arvind Kumar Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

3. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioners have prayed for a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing
the respondents not to interfere in their
peaceful life and also for a direction to
provide protection.

4. It is contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioners that both the
petitioners are major and they are living
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
together on their own free will, but the
respondent no. 4 is causing hindrance in
their peaceful life and it is prayed that the
respondent- Police Authorities may be
directed to restrain the responder no. 4
from interfering in the petitioners' life.

5. It is further submitted that the
petitioner no. 1 moved an application to
S.S.P., Saharanpur on 25.9.2025 wherein
she stated that she is the wife of the
respondent no. 4 and now she has started
living with the petitioner no. 2 in a
relationship and her husband/respondent
no. 4 is threatening her with consequences.
The application dated 25.9.2025 has been
appended as annexure no. 3 to this petition.

6. The learned Standing Counsel, as
per instructions, submits that this is the
second marriage of the petitioner no. 1 Smt.
Sonam and both the petitioners are living in
a relationship for the last two years and
they have no apprehension of life threat
from respondent no. 4. No marriage
certificate has been appended by the
petitioners since the petitioner no. 1 is
already married and no divorce decree has
been passed by any competent court having
jurisdiction. Only divorce suit has been
filed which is still pending and the
petitioner no. 1 is still legally wedded wife
of her earlier husband Rajat, however, the
petitioner no. 1 may approach the Police
Authorities, in case, any harassment or
humiliation is caused by her earlier
husband Rajat. Attention of the Court has
been drawn towards Annexure No. 1 to the
supplementary affidavit wherein it is
mentioned that divorce petition has been
filed by the petitioner no. 1 against her
husband Rajat on 30.10.2025 i.e. after
passing the order by this Court on
16.10.2025 whereby it was observed that
the petitioner no. 1 was already married
and no divorce had taken place between the
petitioner no. 1 and her husband/respondent
no. 4 and she was directed to file copy of
the divorce petition.

7. I have heard rival submissions of
both the parties.

8. In the case of Asha Devi and
Another vs. State of U.P. and Others
passed in Writ (C) No.18743 of 2020,
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court formulated two questions as
under:-

"(i) Whether the petitioners, who
claim themselves to be living together as
husband and wife;
can be granted
protection when the petitioner No.1 is
legally wedded wife of someone else and
has not taken divorce sofar ?

(ii)
Whether
protection
to
petitioners as husband and wife or as livein-relationship can be granted in exercise
of powers conferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, when their living
together may constitute offences under
Sections 494/495 I.P.C. ?"

9. In the judgment of Asha Devi
(Supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court has discussed the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "D.
Velusamy Vs. D. Patchaiammal, (2010)
10 SCC 469", in which the Hon'ble Apex
court held that:-

"32. In our opinion not all live in
relationships will amount to a relationship
in the nature of marriage to get the benefit
of the Act of 2005. To get such benefit the
conditions mentioned by us above must be
satisfied, and this has to be proved by
evidence.
11 All. Smt. Sonam & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
929

If a man has a `keep' whom he
maintains financially and uses mainly for
sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would
not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the
nature of marriage'."

(emphasis supplied)

10. In the judgment of Asha Devi
(Supra), the Division Bench of this Court
on the basis of various judgments of High
Court held that following relationship are
not recognized or approved as living in
relationship:-

"(a) Concubine can not maintain
relationship in the nature of marriage vide
paras 57 & 59 of the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. V. K. V.
Sarma (2013) 15 SCC 755.

(b)
Polygamy,
that
is
a
relationship or practice of having more
than one wife or husband at the same time,
or a relationship by way of a bigamous
marriage that is marrying someone while
already
married
to
another
and/or
maintaining an adulterous relationship that
is having voluntary sexual intercourse
between a married person who is not one's
husband or wife, cannot be said to be a
relationship in the nature of marriage vide
para 58 of judgment in Indra Sarma's Case
(supra) & A Subhash Babu Vs. state of A.P.
(2011) 7 SCC 616 (paras 17 to 21, 27, 28
& 29). Polygamy is also a criminal offence
under Section 494 & 495 I.P.C., vide
Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India (2017) 9
SCC 1 (paras 299.3).

(c) Till a decree of divorce is
passed the marriage subsist. Any other
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage would constitute an offence under
Section 494 I.P.C. read with Section 17 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
person, inspite of his conversion to some
other religion would be liable to be
prosecuted for the offence of bigamy, vide
Lily Thomas and another Vs. Union of
India and others (2000) 6 SCC 224 (Para
35). In para 38 of the aforesaid judgment,
Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as
under:-

"38. Religion is a matter of faith
stemming from the depth of the heart and
mind. Religion is a belief which binds the
spiritual nature of man to a super-natural
being; it is an object of conscientious
devotion, faith and pietism. Devotion in its
fullest sense is a consecration and denotes
an act of worship. Faith in the strict sense
constitutes firm reliance on the truth of
religious doctrines in every system of
religion. Religion, faith or devotion are not
easily interchangeable. If the person feigns
to have adopted another religion just for
some worldly gain or benefit, it would be
religious bigotry. Looked at from this
angle, a person who mockingly adopts
another
religion
where
plurality
of
marriage is permitted so as to renounce the
previous marriage and desert the wife, he
cannot be permitted to take advantage of
his exploitation as religion is not a
commodity to be exploited. The institution
of marriage under every personal law is a
sacred institution. Under Hindu Law,
Marriage is a sacrament. Both have to be
preserved."

(emphasis supplied)

(d) If both the persons are
otherwise not qualified to enter into a legal
marriage including being unmarried, vide
D Velusamy Vs. D Patchaiammal (supra)
(para 31)."

11. In the judgment of Asha Devi
(Supra), Hon'ble Division Bench of this
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court has also discussed the judgment of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
"Director of Settlement, A.P. Vs. M.R.
Apparao (2002) 4 SCC 638, in which the
Hon'ble Apex court has considered the
High Court's power for issuance of
mandamus and held as under:-

"17. ................. One of the
conditions for exercising power under
Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is
that the Court must come to the conclusion
that the aggrieved person has a legal right,
which entitles him to any of the rights and
that such right has been infringed. In other
words, existence of a legal right of a citizen
and performance of any corresponding
legal duty by the State or any public
authority, could be enforced by issuance of
a writ of mandamus. "Mandamus" means a
command. It differs from the writs of
prohibition or certiorari in its demand for
some activity on the part of the body or
person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus
is a command issued to direct any person,
corporation,
inferior
Courts
or
Government, requiring him or them to do
some particular thing therein specified
which appertains to his or their office and
is in the nature of a public duty. A
mandamus is available against any public
authority including administrative and
local bodies, and it would lie to any person
who is under a duty imposed by statute or
by the common law to do a particular act.
In order to obtain a writ or order in the
nature of mandamus, the applicant has to
satisfy that he has a legal right to the
performance of a legal duty by the party
against whom the mandamus is sought and
such right must be subsisting on the date of
the petition. .................."

12. In the relationship of a marriage or
a live-in relationship, there must be two
consenting adults human beings. The
concept of Gotra, Caste and Religion is left
way back. No one has the right to interfere
in the personal liberty of two adults, not
even the parents of the two adults can
interfere in their relationship, but, the Right
to Freedom or Right to Personal Liberty is
not an absolute or unfettered right, it is
qualified by some restrictions also. The
freedom of one person extincts where the
statutory right of another person starts. A
spouse has statutory right to enjoy the
company of his or her counterpart and
he/she cannot be deprived of that right for
the sake of personal liberty and no such
protection can be granted to infringe
statutory right of the other spouse, hence,
the freedom of one person cannot encroach
or overweigh the legal right of another
person. If the petitioners are already
married and have their spouse alive, he/she
cannot be legally permitted to enter into
live-in relationship with a third person
without seeking divorce from the earlier
spouse. He/she first has to obtain the decree
of divorce from the court of competent
jurisdiction before solemnizing marriage
entering into live-in in a relationship out of
their legal marriage.

13. A Division Bench of this Court in
Writ-C No. 14443 of 2021, Smt. Aneeta
vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on
29.7.2021, has considered the similar
matter where petitioner no. 1 Smt. Aneeta
was in a relationship with petitioner no. 2
because
of
apathetic
and
torturous
behaviour of respondent no. 4, her legally
wedded husband, who barged into the
house of petitioner no. 2 and petitioners
sought a writ order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 2 to protect and enforce the
fundamental right of the petitioners; life
and personal liberty as guaranteed under
11 All. Smt. Sonam & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
931
Article 220 and 221 of the Constitution of
India and ensure safety and protection of
petitioners as well as to ensure no further
hindrance is caused in their relationship,
and the petitioners may not be harassed in
any way by the local police or by the
respondent no. 4 or his associates in any
manner whatsoever. This Court observed in
Writ- C No. 11295 of 2021 (Premwati and
another Vs. State of U.P and others) that
we are not against granting protection to
people
who
want
to
live
together
irrespective of the fact as to which
community, caste or sex they belong to. If
the respondent no. 4 barged into the house
of petitioner no. 2, it is in the realm of
criminal dispute for which she can move
the criminal machinery available in the
country. But no law abiding citizen who is
already married under the Hindu Marriage
Act can seek protection of this Court for
illicit relationship, which is not within the
purview of social fabric of this country. If
she has any differences with her husband,
she has to first get separated from her
spouse as per the law applicable to the
community. Live-in relationship cannot be
granted at the cost of the social fabric of
this country. Directing the police to grant
protection to them may indirectly give our
assent to such illicit relations.

14. While applying the principles laid
down in various pronouncements by
Hon'ble the Apex Court, it gives guidelines
to the fact that couple must be of legal age
to marry and qualified to enter into legal
marriage including being unmarried and
they must be akin to spouse for significant
period of time. There is nothing on record
primarily to show that they are living as
husband-wife or they have solemnized
marriage after obtaining divorce from the
earlier marriage. Neither proof of joint
account, financial security, joint property or
joint expenditure is produced before this
Court nor any document is produced before
this
Court
to
substantiate
that
the
petitioners are akin to spouse.

15. According to own case of the
petitioners, the petitioner no. 1 is still a
legally
wedded
wife
of
one
Rajat/respondent no. 4. As per own alleged
application dated 25.9.2025, which is
annexed as annexure-3 to this petition, the
petitioners are living in a relationship and
they
have
sought
protection
from
interference in their living together. The
petitioner no. 1 is already a married women
being wife of one Rajat, the act of the
petitioners particularly the petitioner no. 2,
may constitute an offences under section
494/495 of IPC. Such a relationship does
not
fall
within
the
phrase
"live-in
relationship" or "relationship in the nature
of marriage ". The writ petition has been
filed by the petitioners for protection from
interference by others in their living as
husband and wife. If the protection as
prayed is granted, it may amount to grant
protection against commission of offences
under section 494/495 of IPC.

16. Article 226 of the Constitution of
India empowers High Court to issue
directions, orders or writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibiton, quo
warranto and certiorari or any of them.
Such directions, orders or writs may be
issued for the enforcement of fundamental
rights or for any other purpose. The
jurisdiction under Article 226 is equitable
and discretionary.

17. Following relationship have not
been recognized or approved as live-in
relationship or relationship in the nature of
marriage. This list is not exhaustive but
merely illustrative :-
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"(a) Concubine can not maintain
relationship in the nature of marriage.

(b)
Polygamy,
that
is
a
relationship or practice of having more
than one wife or husband at the same time,
or a relationship by way of a bigamous
marriage that is marrying someone while
already
married
to
another
and/or
maintaining an adulterous relationship that
is having voluntary sexual intercourse
between a married person who is not one's
husband or wife, cannot be said to be a
relationship in the nature of marriage.
Polygamy is also a criminal offence under
Sections 494 & 495 I.P.C.

(c) Till a decree of divorce is
passed the marriage subsist. Any other
marriage during the subsistence of the first
marriage would constitute an offence under
Section 494 I.P.C. read with Section 17 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the
person, inspite of his conversion to some
other religion would be liable to be
prosecuted for the offence of bigamy. (d) If
both the persons are otherwise not
qualified to enter into a legal marriage
including being unmarried."

18. It is settled law that writ of
mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a
legal right to the performance of a legal duty
by the party against whom the mandamus is
sought and such right must be subsisting on
the date of the petition. Similar view has also
been taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Kalyan Singh vs, State of U.P., AIR 1962
SC 1183 and Director of Settlement A.P.
(supra). Applying the principles of issuance of
writ of mandamus on the facts of the present
case, this Court finds that the petitioners have
no legal right for protection on the facts of the
present case inasmuch as such the protection
as being asked, may amount to protection
against commission of offence under Section
494/495 I.P.C. It is well settled law that writ of
mandamus can not be issued contrary to law
or to defeat a statutory provision including
penal provision. The petitioners do not have
legally protected and judicially enforceable
subsisting right to ask for mandamus.

19. Considering rival submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and the Judicial
Authorities of this Court cited as above, this
Court is not inclined to issue any writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus for
protection to the petitioners who are in live-in
relationship without obtaining decree of
divorce from
the
competent
court
as
mentioned above. The petitioner no. 1 is
legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 and
their marriage has not been dissolved by
orders of any competent court, therefore, it
would be deemed to be subsisting in the eye of
law. In such a situation, protection to the
petitioners who claim to be in live-in
relationship, cannot be granted in exercise of
powers conferred under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as well as in the light of
judgment of Asha Devi (supra).

20.
Accordingly,
petition
stands
dismissed with above observations.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 932
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1001660 of 2003

Daya Ram Objection Filed ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondents

Counsel
for
the
Petitioner: