Allahabad HC Dismisses Live-in Protection Petition With Rs 1 Lakh Cost After Petitioners Concealed Existing Marriage and Kinship

The Lucknow Bench found that petitioners suppressed a pending divorce case and a blood relationship to obtain interim police protection for their proposed marriage.

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by two individuals seeking protection from police harassment so they could solemnise their marriage. A Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Mrs. Babita Rani dismissed the petition on 3 August 2026 and imposed a joint and several cost of Rs 1,00,000 on the petitioners after finding that they had approached the court with false affidavits, concealed the fact that the male petitioner was already married with a pending divorce suit, and suppressed their blood relationship as maternal cousins. The court relied on the principles restated by the Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 398, to hold that litigants who obtain interim orders by fraud on the court are not entitled to any relief.

What the Petitioners Sought and What the Court Initially Ordered

Kusum Maurya and one other petitioner filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5022 of 2026 before the Lucknow Bench. Through the petition, they sought two writs in the nature of mandamus: one directing the police and other authorities not to harass them or adopt coercive processes against them, and another directing authorities not to threaten them with arrest absent a registered criminal case.

When the matter came up before a co-ordinate Bench on 26 May 2026, counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Saumya Shukla, submitted that both petitioners were major in age, were living as husband and wife, and wished to solemnise their marriage but had been unable to do so because of fear of private opposite parties who were their respective parents. The co-ordinate Bench noted that “if two major persons are willing to marry each other, no one can prevent them from doing so.”

Acting on those representations, the Bench on 26 May 2026 permitted the petitioners to solemnise their marriage within one month through simple rituals or any permissible procedure, and directed them to register the marriage within 15 days thereafter before the Marriage Registration Authority. The petitioners were directed to appear before the court on 3 August 2026 in person along with proof of registration of their marriage certificate. Interim protection from harassment by any private person or public authority, including police, was granted until the next date, subject to the condition that the protection could be withdrawn if the petitioners failed to follow the directions.

What Emerged When Petitioners Appeared on 3 August 2026

The petitioners appeared in person on 3 August 2026 in compliance with the 26 May 2026 order. Counsel Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey then disclosed, for the first time, that the petitioners had been unable to solemnise and register their marriage because petitioner No. 2 was already married and had filed a divorce petition — Suit No. 220 of 2026 under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — before the Family Court, Balrampur. Petitioner No. 2, present in person, confirmed that the divorce suit had been filed on 3 April 2026, several weeks before the writ petition was heard.

The Bench also recorded that the petitioners are relatives: petitioner No. 2 is the maternal cousin of petitioner No. 1. This fact, too, had not been placed before the court earlier.

The court noted a further discrepancy on a basic factual question. When petitioner No. 2 was asked about his occupation, he said he was a labourer. When petitioner No. 1 was asked the same question about petitioner No. 2, she said he ran a computer shop. The Bench found that petitioner No. 2 had therefore also made a false statement before the court.

Why the Court Found the Petition an Abuse of Process

The Division Bench held that neither the existing marriage of petitioner No. 2 nor the pending divorce suit nor the blood relationship between the petitioners had been disclosed in the writ petition or when the order of 26 May 2026 was passed. The only representation made to the co-ordinate Bench was that the petitioners were unable to marry because of fear of their parents. On that representation, protection was granted and a direction to register the marriage was issued.

The Bench concluded that the interim order had been obtained by concealing material facts and playing fraud on the court, which amounted to an abuse of the process of the court.

The court drew on Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2013) 2 SCC 398, in which the Supreme Court recapitulated the obligations of a litigant and the consequences of abuse of process. The Bench extracted paragraphs 32, 33, and 34 of that judgment at length. The principles relevant to this case included the following: courts have consistently declined to hear on merits, or grant any relief to, litigants who approach with intent to deceive and without full disclosure of facts; persons who seek relief on ex parte statements are under an obligation to place the whole case fully and fairly before the court, and breach of that obligation disentitles them to any discretionary relief; a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches the fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final; and courts must ensure their process is not abused, with the power to impose heavy costs in cases of serious abuse.

The Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite also stated that “the entire journey of a Judge is to discern the truth from the pleadings, documents and arguments of the parties, as truth is the basis of the justice-delivery system.” The Lucknow Bench applied these principles directly to the conduct of the petitioners, holding that the petition had been filed with a false affidavit and with material concealment, making it liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

Cost Mechanism and Recovery Directions

The writ petition was dismissed with a cost of Rs 1,00,000 (Rupees One Lakh), to be paid jointly and severally by the petitioners. The Bench set out a detailed recovery chain to ensure compliance.

The petitioners were directed to pay the cost to the Senior Registrar of the court within four weeks from 3 August 2026. If they failed to do so, the Senior Registrar was directed to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue through the District Magistrate concerned within eight weeks. If the District Magistrate failed to effect recovery within that eight-week period, the Senior Registrar was directed to inform and submit a report to the Contempt Court so that appropriate action could be taken against both the petitioners and the District Magistrate concerned.

Order

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 5022 of 2026 was dismissed on 3 August 2026 by the Division Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Mrs. Babita Rani at the Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The interim protection granted on 26 May 2026 stood vacated. A cost of Rs 1,00,000 was imposed jointly and severally on the petitioners, payable to the Senior Registrar within four weeks, with recovery as arrears of land revenue through the District Magistrate and a report to the Contempt Court in the event of non-recovery.