Shagufta Khan vs State of U.P.

Satyendra Singh Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 3 as well as learned AGA.

In pursuance to the order of this Court dated 2.5.2011 Ms. Shagufta Khan is present along with her father Ekhlaq Khan. She was questioned by the Court and upon being asked as to whether she married Tamheed Khan she categorically denied about the marriage and also denied that no Nikah has taken place between the parties. She also states that she does not know Tamheed Khan. Therefore, this petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court is bad in law and it appears that he has tried to misuse the process of the Court. The statement of the girl goes to indicate that she does not know the petitioner.

In these circumstances, the claim by the petitioner in regard to Nikah and marriage with Ms. hagufta Khan is wholly baseless and cannot be taken into consideration.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the father of Ms. Shagufta Khan O.P. No. 3 and it has been stated by the father of the girl that he does not put his thumb impression and he always put his signature on the documents while his thumb impression has been shown in the Nikahnama.

The aforesaid fact indicates that Nikahnama is on the baseless premise and present petition has been filed with malafide intention.

Since machinery of this Court has been invoked for irrelevant consideration cost of Rs. 10,000/ (Rs. ten thousand) is imposed upon the petitioner Tamheed Khan, who shall deposit the same before the Registrar of this Court within a period of one month from today. The Registrar will transfer the amount to the Mediation Centre. In case deposit is not made within the aforesaid period, the District Magistrate concerned will realize the amount as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner and deposit the same with the Mediation Centre of this Bench.

With the above observations, the petition is dismissed.