PAWAN KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the fifth respondent were married on 9 March 2008. The petitioner gave birth to a female child and a male child. The daughter is about four years old and the son is aged about one year. The allegation of the petitioner is that she had gone to visit her parents in connection with a religious ceremony on 20 February 2014 and when she returned, she was taken to the Station House Officer, Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar and was detained in the lock-up together with her children. Thereafter the petitioner was produced on two or three occasions before the Deputy District Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dumariyaganj, District Siddharth Nagar, who has been impleaded as respondent no.2. On 23 February 2014, the second respondent passed an order directing the petitioner to proceed with her children to her matrimonial home and the Station House Officer was directed to provide protection to her and her children.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the fifth respondent was not ready to take her back and on his persuasion, the police prepared a chalani report and produced her before the second respondent. The second respondent passed an order on 25 February 2014, stating that the petitioner had informed him that after her marriage to the fifth respondent, a girl was born; that thereupon she contacted the sixth respondent, who is not married and a male child was born from that relationship. The order of the second respondent records that because the male child has been born out of a relationship between the petitioner and the sixth respondent, neither the in-laws nor the husband of the petitioner are ready to take her back. The second respondent passed the impugned order recording that the petitioner had expressed a desire to go with the sixth respondent following which, he entrusted her supurdagi to the sixth respondent.

(3.) When this petition came up for hearing, the principal grievance of the petitioner was that the second respondent could not have handed over the supurdagi to the sixth respondent. The petitioner is a major and she was not ready and willing to proceed with the sixth respondent. The petitioner seriously contested what was recorded in the impugned order passed by the second respondent. She stated that as a result of the observations made in the impugned order passed by the second respondent, she would virtually be deprived from pursuing her rights and claims against the fifth respondent in respect of her marital tie and matrimonial home.