Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25240 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Ruma And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Ojha,Mohd. Isa Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J.
The petitioners claimed to have married with each other. Not an iota of marriage proof is produced as envisaged under the Hindu Marriage Act. When confronted with the submission of State Councils that one of the parties is a minor, learned counsel submits that minority is not be considered by this Court.
I agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that majority or minority is not to be seen by this Court but a wrong statement is made in the affidavit filed in this Court. The Court should hold the advocate also liable for purjery. In my confirmed opinion marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act is not to be performed on Indian Non-Judicial stamp-paper.
Again when confronted as to why statement is made. Both the learned counsel for the petitioner states that it is never conveyed the same but in the petition it is mentioned that one of the parties is major. I am not on the majority or the minority of the marriage. On what date marriage took place and where it took place is also doubtful.
Hence, in absence of any proof of marriage, I am of the opinion that this petition does not require any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
This petition is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
However, if cogent proof of marriage is produced, Police to grant protection.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 LN Tripathi