GIRIJA RAJDAN Vs. AJEET KUMAR TANDON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. K. Dhaon, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I. D. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on be half of opposite party No. 1.

(2.) THE opposite party No. 1 moved an application under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. , Act No. 13 of 1972. THE said applica nts was rejected by the Prescribed Authority. Being aggrieved by the order of the Prescribed Authority, the opposite party No. 1 filed an appeal which is pend ing before the appellate authority. In the said appeal an application was moved by the petitioner under Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 read with Rule 22 of the rules framed thereunder. THE said application of the petitioner was rejected by the order dated 3-1-2001. Being ag grieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) 1 have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order. The application for release are decided by the Prescribed Authority or the appellate authority on the basis of the affidavit which is the prescribed procedure under the Act and Rules. The question whether the daughter is married or unmarried can be decided on the basis of the affidavit and the trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the petitioners moved under Section 34 (1) of the U. P. Act No. 13of 1972 read with Rule 22.