- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. In this habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner Ravin-dra Kumar vide order dated 17. 4. 2008, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vijay Kumar Verma had ordered respondent No. 2 to produce Smt. Shashi Verma before this Court on 21. 5. 2006.
(2.) HEARD Sri Rajendra Singh, Advo cate for the petitioner and Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government Advo cate for the State. Now the petitioner has come again with an application annexing with it a marriage card and says that the respon dent No. 2 is going to marry his dr aghter Km. Shashi again and the Counsel ays that in case the status quo between the parties is not maintained; the very purpose of filing the petition will frustrate, giving rise to serious ramifications. The controversy in question has to be subsequently decided, but in the present case, it is just, fair and necessary that status quo should be maintained and for that purpose the re-marriage of the lady Smt. Shashi Verma, scheduled to be held should be stayed, so that petition may not become infructuous, Put up on 21. 5. 2008 for hearing as al ready fixed. The girl is living with respondent-father namely Shashi Kant Pandey and he will produce the girl in the Court on the date fixed.
(3.) MOHD. Israil Siddiqui, Additional Government Advocate has been told to communicate this order to respondent fa ther forthwith so that the marriage may not be gone there. Office to give a certified copy of this order to Mohd. Israil Siddiqui, Addi tional Government Advocate, free of costs today itself for information and compliance and a certified copy of this order be also is-' sued to the Counsel for the petitioner Sri Rajendra by the office, today itself, on payment of usual charges.;