Court No. - 40
Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2018 IN Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 812 of 2018 Appellant :- Ram Singh Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pavan Kumar Kushwaha,Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Das Yadav
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Prabha Shankar Bharti, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sir Pavan Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Ramdas Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.
We have gone through the contents of affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application and we find more than sufficient cause to condone the delay. The delay is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed. Office shall give a regular number to this appeal.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Puspendra .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 812 of 2018 Appellant :- Ram Singh Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pavan Kumar Kushwaha,Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Das Yadav
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Prabha Shankar Bharti, learned Advocate, holding brief of Sir Pavan Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Ramdas Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 4 and 5.
This appeal questions the correctness of the directions of the learned Single Judge issued as an interim measure while entertaining a writ petition where protections have been sought by respondent nos. 4 and 5 from this Court that their alleged marital relationship may not be interfered with by the appellant, who is the father of respondent no. 4. While hearing the petition it appears that stiff opposition was raised by the appellant's counsel and, as a consequence thereof, the learned Single Judge at the interim stage treated the opposition to be based on a flimsy ground. The protection to the respondent no. 4 was given keeping in view the law laid down in the case of Lata Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC 2522 but at the same time the learned Single Judge proceeded to direct the appellant, who is the respondent no. 4, in the writ petition, to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the respondent no. 4, his daughter. For compliance, the matter was fixed before the learned Single Judge since no orders were passed on the date fixed, the writ petition still remains pending.
Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently urged that this direction issued is not only inequitable but it is also not sustainable in law inasmuch as the writ petitioner claimed a relief of protection but not an imposition of a pecuniary liability on the appellant. The learned Single Judge, according to the learned counsel for the appellant travelled beyond the controversy raised by respondent-petitioners and directed the depositing of Rs. 50,000/- by which the appellant is aggrieved.
Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that the writ petition is still pending and, therefore, this matter may be left open for consideration by the learned Single Judge himself.
We, having gone through the pleadings, are of the considered opinion that there was absolutely no justification for the imposition of Rs. 50,000/- deposit on the appellant for which we find the reasons recorded to be the welfare of the respondent no. 4. This was not even the case of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 before the Single Judge. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge therefore to that extent was absolutely unjustified.
So far as the final relief in the writ petition is concerned, the same has already been directed to be considered by the police authorities in the order dated 24.9.2018 itself. We, therefore, do not find any reason to even allow the writ petition to remain pending and, consequently, we allow this appeal and set aside the interim order dated 24.9.2018 and substitute the same by directing that the respondent nos. 4 and 5, who are the writ petitioners, shall be at liberty to seek such protection from the police authorities, as may be available to them in accordance with law and their living relationship shall not be interfered with otherwise than except in accordance with law by the appellant.
Consequently, this appeal as well as Writ-C No. 32233 of 2018, both stand disposed of under these directions. A copy of the order be placed on the record of this writ petition.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.10.2018 Puspendra