SANDEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 36834 of 2026

Sandeep Kumar And Another
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                   :   Narendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)                   :   C.S.C.

Court No. - 75
                 HON'BLE DR. GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J.

1. Shri Dileep Singh Yadav, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on
behalf of respondent No. 3, which is taken on record.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are seeking issuance
of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the
peaceful married life of the petitioners as husband and wife and further
direction has also been sought for the authorities concerned to provide
protection to the petitioners on the ground that they are major and have
solemnized marriage and are living as husband and wife.

3. It is stated that private respondent and other family members have got
annoyed with the petitioners as they have solemnized marriage against
their wishes, as such there is serious danger to their lives as they are being
threatened and harassed. It is further stated that the petitioners have
already applied for registration of their marriage. In case, this Court does
not grant them protection, their lives may be endangered. The averments
made in the petition are supported by the joint affidavits of the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that that the
respondent No. 3 is the father of the petitioner No.2. On 26.06.2026 he
has solemnized marriage of his daughter (petitioner No. 2) with one Ray
Singh, S/o Bhurey Singh. Learned counsel further submits that once the
marriage of the petitioner no. 2 has already been solemnized, then
subsequent marriage of the petitioner no.2 with the petitioner no. 1 is null
and void since no divorce has been taken by her from her previous
husband and that marriage is still subsisting. He thus submits that the
petitioners have not only concealed the material fact but have also given
                                                          WRIC No. 36834 of 2026
                                 2


false affidavit before this Court and therefore the proceedings in
accordance with law may be initiated against the petitioners.

5. The father of the petitioner No. 2 as well as her previous husband,
namely Ray Singh, are also present in this Court, who have been
identified by their counsel, Shri Dileep Singh. They both have also
recorded their statements in writing, which have been verified by their
counsel, Shri Dileep Singh Yadav, and are taken on record. The father of
the petitioner No. 2, i.e., respondent No. 3 has stated that he had
solemnized marriage of his daughter, Soni Yadav (petitioner No. 2) with
Ray Singh on 26.06.2026, but during subsistence of her first marriage, she
has again solemnized marriage with the petitioner no.1, which is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. Ray Singh, also stated that his marriage
was solemnized with Soni Yadav (petitioner No. 1) on 26.06.2026.

6. According to the statements of father of the petitioner No. 2 and her
previous husband, it is evident and amply clear that the marriage of the
petitioner no. 2 was solemnized with Ray Singh on 26.06.2026, thereafter
she went away with the petitioner No. 1 and has solemnized marriage
with him. In the instant petition, the petitioners have filed a joint affidavit,
wherein it has been categorically averred that they have solemnized
marriage according to Hindu rites and rituals and Satpadi rituals before
the fire on 20.07.2026 and are living as husband and wife. The first
marriage of the petitioner no. 2 was well within knowledge of the
petitioner no. 1, but inspite of the same, the petitioner no. 1 has
solemnized marriage with her and without disclosing the fact of earlier
marriage of the petitioner no. 2, the petitioners have come up before this
Court seeking protection. Thus, the act of the petitioner No. 2 falls within
the offence of bigamy. Under Indian law, bigamy is strictly prohibited
and treated as a serious criminal offense for the majority of its citizens.
Governed primarily by the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955 (which applies to
Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and Sikhs) as well as the Special Marriage Act
of 1954, any subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of a
valid first marriage is considered null and void from its inception.

7. Apart from the above, the petitioners have not come before the Court
with clean hands. They have not disclosed in the petition about their
marital status. Time and again, the issue of abuse of process of law has
                                                         WRIC No. 36834 of 2026
                                3


come up before Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as High Courts. The
Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who, with intent
to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full
disclosure of facts.

8. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union of India (2007)6 SCC 120, Supreme
Court held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise
its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must of material fact. Material
fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It
was further held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of
the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands.

9. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs. State Bank of India (2007)8 SCC
449, Apex Court held as under:

     "It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of
     course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ
     Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is
     invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full
     facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of
     misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without
     adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger
     public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the
     process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ
     jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct
     facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are
     suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ
     courts would become impossible.".

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others, (2010)2 SCC 114 came down heavily on unscrupulous
litigants by holding that it is now well established that a litigant who
attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain
of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

11. Considering the aforesaid preposition of law as well as the facts of the
instant case that the petitioner no. 2 was already married with one Ray
Singh. That marriage is still subsisting and that marriage was within the
knowledge of the petitioner no. 1. The Court takes note of the contents of
                                                                                           WRIC No. 36834 of 2026
                                                                   4


                                    paragraph no. 7 of the petition, wherein it has been specifically stated that
                                    this is the first marriage of the petitioners by Hindu rites and rituals
                                    according to law, whereas father of the petitioner No. 2 and her previous
                                    husband have stated that the petitioner No. 2 is already married, which
                                    clearly demonstrates the intent of the petitioners to mislead the Court. The
                                    petitioners have suppressed the material facts and have given false
                                    affidavit before this Court which tantamount to play fraud upon the court
                                    since they have not disclosed the true facts regarding first marriage of the
                                    petitioner No. 2. Therefore, it is clearly visible that false joint affidavit
                                    has been given by the petitioners only to get an order of protection by
                                    playing fraud upon the Court. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the
                                    petitioners are not entitled for any relief, rather the proceedings under
                                    Sections 379 of B.N.S.S. is liable to be initiated against them.

                                    12. Accordingly the instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

                                    13. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, is directed to initiate proceedings
                                    under Section 379 of B.N.S.S. against the petitioners in accordance with
                                    law.

                                    14. The Registrar (Compliance) of this Court is directed to communicate
                                    the order passed by this Court to the concerned Magistrate, forthwith.



                                                                                  (Dr. Gautam Chowdhary,J.)
                                    September 15, 2026
                                    Mustaqeem./S.Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
MOHD MUSTAQEEM KHAN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad