- (1.) The three petitioners, who are related as daughter, mother and father and stand impleaded as Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 respectively in the Matrimonial Petition No. 172 of 1997 filed before the Court of Judge, Family Court, Allahabad (Respondent No. 2) by Respondent No. 1 under Section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking grant of a decree for divorce of petitioner No.1 dissolving their marriage and for a declaration that it is null and void as contained in Annexure 1, have knocked the doors of this constitutional Court taking aid of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for (i) quashing by grant of writ of Certiorari the proceedings of Matrimonial Petition No. 172 of 1997 aforesaid (ii) and restraining respondent No. 2 by grant of a writ of Prohibition from proceeding with the aforementioned petition.
(2.) Paragraph Nos. 1 to 13 of the Matrimonial Petition aforementioned reads as follows - "1. That the petitioner is resident of village Chandauki, Pergana Sikandra, Tehsil Phulpur district Allahabad and the petitioner is about 30 years of age. 2. That the respondent No. 1 had been living with opposite parties 2 and 3 in IFFCO Unit Phulpur, Allahabad in the year 1989. 3. That the petitioner and respondent No. 1 came in friendly contact with each other and this friendship developed into deep love and affection and out of that love the petitioner and respondent No. 1 on their own sweet will and consent came to Allahabad city and in Hanumanji Mandir at Bandhwa, Allahabad, as river Ganges, garlanded each other and became wife and husband on 5th Dec., 1989. 4. That after the marriage before Hanumanji at Bandhwa on 5-12-1989, the petitioner and respondent No. 1 came to petitioner's house in village Chandauki and both used to live as husband and wife. The respondent No. 1 performed her marital obligations with the petitioner being his wife. 5. That after a gap of two months, when the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 came about the Gandharv marriage of the r espondent No. 1 with the petitioner, they came to the house of the petitioner and became annoyed but compelled by the circumstances they want back to their residence at IFFCO Phulpur. 6. That during the course of marriage the presents of the petitioner gave ornaments of Rs. 80,000.00 and clothes of Rs. 20,000.00 to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 was fully satisfied with the treatment, love, affection and behaviour of the petitioner and his parents and had been living happily as wife of the petitioner. 7. That however, the respondent No. 3 came to the house of the petitioner again after 3 months and requested the petitioner and his parents to send the respondent No. 1 for some period and the petitioner and his parents on his request, sent the respondent No. 1 with respondent No. 3 along with ornaments and clothes and some cash for her expenses. 8. That during this period the respondent No. 3 without any information to the petitioner managed his transfer from IFFCO Phulputr Unito Kalole Unit Gujarat and stealthily took with him the respondent No. 1 along with him. 9. That when the petitioner knew about the transfer of the respondent No. 3, he made several correspondence and went to the respondents at Gujarat but the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 did not even allow the petitioner to meet his wife the respondent No.1. 10. That about 5 years have passed but despite best efforts made by the petitioner and his parents, the respondents 2 and 3 did not send the respondent No. 1 to the petiDtioner. 11. That due to living away from the respondent No. 1 petitioner is leading a deserted life. He has not been allowed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to live and enjoy with his own wife and is facing great mental and physical torture. 12. That the respondent No. 1 is living separately with the petitioner for the last 5 years and there is no hope that she will come and live with the petitioner and perform her marrital obligation hence it is expedient that the decree of judicial separation be passed against the respondent No. 1 and in favour of the petitioner. 13. That cause of action of this petition arose firstly on 5-12-1989 when marriage was solemnized and thereafter on 20-12-1995 when the respondents refused to make Bidai of respondent No. 1 and the same is still continuing within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court and this Court has jurisdiction to try the petition."
(3.) The facts alleged by the petitioners are in a narrow compass, which are as follows : (a) Petitioner No. 3 was Production Manager of Phulpur Unit of IFFCO, an important urea producing fertilizer unit of the Country. He was residing in IFFCO Township known as Ghiya Nagar. He later on became its Joint Manager and even General Manager. (b) Petitioner No. 1 after graduation from Sofia College, Ajmer in 1988 came to IFFCO township. She joined Megabite Computer Academy, a private Institute running part time computer classes. (c) Respondent No. 1 Amit Misra, who at times calls himself O.P. Misra or A.K. Misra was in the said institute. (d) The security section of the IFFCO reported that Amit Misra was causing nuisance by teasing and harassing the girls and boys of the employees travelling by IFFCO Bus for which he was also warned a number of times. On 8-6-1990 the security staff even filed a First Information Report against respondent No. 1 (copy appended as Annexure 10) who had no contacts with petitioner No. 1. (e) Petitioners left to Kalol, Gujarat. Petitioner No. 1 started receiving letters in bad taste and filthy language purported to be sent by Amit Misra/ O.P. Misra/ A. K. Misra at the official address to petitioner No. 3 which were ignored. (f) Respondent No. 1 filed Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 2883 of 1990 in this Court alleging, inter alia , that he has solemnized his marriage with petitioner No. 1 in a temple by garlanding each other who started living as husband and wife, that petitioner No. 1 was forcibly taken away by petitioner No. 3 to Gujarat, who has been illegally detained against her sweet will and confined a locked house, that petitioner No. 3 did not allow him to see her, that this Court called petitioner 1, recorded her statements on 10-4-1991 (copy appended as Annexure 11) and thereafter dismissed the said writ petition with special cost of Rs. 5,000.00 in favour of petitioner No. 3 vide Judgment and Order dated 18-4-1991 (copy appended as Annexure 4) after considering the statement of Monika Ohri denying the claim made by the Respondent No. 1. (g) Hardly the ink of the aforesaid judgment had dried, respondent No. 1 filed Matrimonial Petition No. 397 of 1991 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, in May, 1991 before respondent No. 2 (copy appended as Annexure 5) impleading petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively claiming solemnization of his marriage with petitioner No. 1 for granting a decree for restitution of his conjugal rights against petitioner No. 1 and to direct her to perform her conjugal duties towards him without any interference by petitioner No.3. Vide Judgment and Decree dated 16-11-1992 the said petitioner was decreed ex parte by respondent No. 2. The said decree was challenged by petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 respectively before this Court in First Appeal No.37 of 1993, which after contested by respondent No. 1 , was allowed vide Judgment and Decree dated 22-1-1997 (as contained in Annexure 7) and the decree dated 16-11-1992 was set aside the petition was dismissed with cost throughout. (h) Petitioner No. 1 was married and she is living with her husband. The particulars of this marriage and their residential address are deliberately being avoided lest respondent No. 1 harass her. (i) The facts aforementioned show that Matrimonial Petition No. 172 of 1997 has been filed mala fide with false allegation only with the object to harass and humiliate the petitioners.;