Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Smt. Usha Gautam And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 22739 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8460 (26 April 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22739 of  2006

Smt. Usha Gautam & Anr.


State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to pay the reasonable share from the salary of the respondent no.4 to the petitioners.

Petitioner no.1 claims to have married with respondent no.4 on 03/12/1997 and out of the said wedlock, petitioner no.2 Km. Shalini Gautam was born on 01/10/1999. Subsequently, petitioner no.1 came to know that the respondent no.4 was already married with one Pushpa Lata and was having two sons and two daughters. Being aggrieved, petitioner no.1 filed a complaint before the U.P. Human Rights Commission raising the grievance against the respondent no.4. An inquiry was conducted in this matter, but no final order has yet been passed. The respondent no.4 is likely to retire from service in the near future  and as the first wife Smt. Pushpa Lata and his children are nominees in the service book of the respondent no.4, petitioners apprehend that the pension, gratuity and other retrial benefits shall be paid to them and the petitioners shall not get anything. More so, petitioner's application No. 106/2000 under Section 125 Cr. P.C. is pending consideration before the learned Family Judge, Kanpur Nagar wherein no order had been passed.

Learned Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition contending that the petitioner has not filed any criminal case against the respondent no.4 for bigamy and maintenance etc. She has filed the case before the Family Judge. The relief sought in this petition cannot be granted unless the issue of bigamy is adjudicated upon by the competent forum.

In view of the preliminary objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Petitioner herself had been working with the respondent no.4 in the same department as a Home Guard. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Family Judge, Kanpur Nagar to consider the grievance of the petitioners and dispose of the case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously.



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.