High CourtsSingle Bench(2014) 06 MP CK 0173

Raju Kumar Prajapati vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 23 June 2014

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sujoy Paul, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
WP No. 3059/2014

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 348 words

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard on admission.

2.

Petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that they have solemnized marriage on their own volition at Gwalior. Their family members are not happy with the marriage and therefore, there is a threat to the petitioners from the family members. It is alleged that there is threat from respondent No. 5.

3.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

4.

As per address of petitioners and respondent No. 5, it is clear that they are residing at Jhansi within the territory of State of Uttar Pradesh. They only solemnized marriage at Gwalior. After marriage, as per address given they are residing in the State of U.P. Thus, threat, if any, is in the State of U.P. Cause of action based on threat, if any, is not based on any incident occurred within the territory of this Bench. Even otherwise, if main cause of action is within the territory of another Bench/Court, this Court may decline interference in view of judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, , in which it is opined as under:-

30.

We must, however, remind ourselves that even if a small part of cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merit. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. [See Bhagat Singh Bugga Vs. Dewan Jagbir Sawhney, , Madanlal Jalan Vs. Madanlal and others , Bharat Coking Coal Limited. Vs. Jharia Talkies and Cold Storage Private Ltd., , S.S. Jain and Co. Vs. Union of India (UOI), and M/s. New Horizons Limited and another Vs. Union of India and others, .

5.

Considering the aforesaid, I find no justification in entertaining this petition. Petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedy before appropriate Bench.