Vishnu Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Vishnu Kumar vs State of U.P. and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Oct 06, 2006

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/493902

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/493902
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Bharati Sapru, J.
Decided On: Oct 06, 2006
Subject: Family
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 [C.A. No. 45/1860]. Section 302; [M.C. Jain, R.C. Deepak & K.K. Misra, JJ] Murder Plea as to accused being minor School register and transfer certificate not proved before Court according to law Held, It has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and cir...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vishnu Kumar

Respondent

State of U.P. and ors.

Legal References

Reported In: AIR2007All31; 2007(1)AWC1010

Excerpt

- indian penal code, 1860 [c.a. no. 45/1860]. section 302; [m.c. jain, r.c. deepak & k.k. misra, jj] murder plea as to accused being minor school register and transfer certificate not proved before court according to law held, it has to be ignored and question of age is to be determined on other evidence and circumstances surfacing on record. age determined on the basis of x-ray plates and report prepared by c.m.o., is the correct age of accused. accused was declared to be child on the date of commission of offence of murder. however, considering fact that now accused was around 41 years, he cannot be sent to approved school. accused was directed to pay fine of rs.25,000/- under section 302 i.p.c., amount of fine was directed to be paid as compensation to wife of deceased. mohammad.....by both parties on 21-5-2000. the statement on record in annexure-3, which also contains a stipulation that the separation itself gives a right to either party to enter into a fresh marriage. it is admitted to the petitioner who claims to be the second husband that he married smt. geeta tewari after this settlement and, therefore, after she expired, he became entitled lo be appointed under the dying and harness rules on compassionate ground.4. i have perused the impugned order. the authority has examined the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the present petitioner shri vishnu kumar could not claim the status of a husband because as per the admitted facts, there was no valid divorce between smt geeta tewari and her first husband. it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that a valid hindu marriage can be brought to an end by way of a settlement or compromise between the parties until it has the due sanction of law. under the hindu marriage act the settlement dated 25-1-2000 cannot, be accepted as a decree or a valid dissolution that took place between geeta tewari and her husband shri ashok kumar.5. the entire claim of the petitioner rests on the document dated 25-1-2000, which cannot be held to be a valid dissolution of a marriage. therefore, really speaking, the petitioner has no claim.6. in view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, 1 have come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 7-4-2003 contains no error of law.7. this writ petition is wholly without any melts and is therefore dismissed.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Bharati Sapru, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by an order dated 7-4-2003 passed by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah, by which he has come to a conclusion that the petitioner was unable to establish the authority concerned that he was the lawful wedded husband of Smt. Geetha who expired on 9-8-2000.

3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has disclosed in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that previously, Smt. Geeta Tewari was married to one Ashok Kumar and decided to separate from him. The separation between Geeta Tewari and Ashok Kumar, her first husband was settled by both parties on 21-5-2000. The statement on record in Annexure-3, which also contains a stipulation that the separation itself gives a right to either party to enter into a fresh marriage. It is admitted to the petitioner who claims to be the second husband that he married Smt. Geeta Tewari after this settlement and, therefore, after she expired, he became entitled lo be appointed under the Dying and Harness Rules on compassionate ground.

4. I have perused the impugned order. The authority has examined the matter and has rightly come to the conclusion that the present petitioner Shri Vishnu Kumar could not claim the status of a husband because as per the admitted facts, there was no valid divorce between Smt Geeta Tewari and her first husband. It could not be said by any stretch of imagination that a valid Hindu Marriage can be brought to an end by way of a settlement or compromise between the parties until it has the due sanction of law. Under the Hindu Marriage Act the settlement dated 25-1-2000 cannot, be accepted as a decree or a valid dissolution that took place between Geeta Tewari and her husband Shri Ashok Kumar.

5. The entire claim of the petitioner rests on the document dated 25-1-2000, which cannot be held to be a valid dissolution of a marriage. Therefore, really speaking, the petitioner has no claim.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, 1 have come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 7-4-2003 contains no error of law.

7. This writ petition is wholly without any melts and is therefore dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2006 Same Parties Vishnu Kumar vs State of U.P. and ors. Same Subject Family Same Judge Bharati Sapru, J.

Family