Point of law: It is settled law that writ of mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to harass or take any coercive action against the petitioners.

(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award cost of the petition to the petitioners.

Submissions:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are living as husband and wife and both are major and therefore protection may be granted to them so that the respondent no. 4, the father of the petitioner no. 1, may not harass the petitioners. He submits that a representation dated 17.09.2020 was submitted by the petitioner no. 1 before the respondent no. 2 but no action has been taken so far.

3. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner no. 2 has taken away the petitioner no. 1 who appears to be duly married wife of one Sri. Mahesh Chandra and thus the petitioner no. 2 is an offender and therefore no protection can be granted to the petitioner.

4. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

Facts:

5. In paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition, it has been stated as under:-

“4. That the petitioner no. 2 is also major aged about 23 years old and his date of birth is 01.01.1997 according to Aadhar Card, the petitioner no. 1 is educated only Class 5th she has no any age proof except Aadhar Card.

5. That the petitioner no. 1 was married earlier with one Mahesh Chandra but who is habitual drinker and assaulted her maliciously therefore she left his home and came at her parental house.

6. That at present the petitioner no. 1 is living in relation with petitioner no. 2 from 24.8.2020 but the father of the petitioner no. 1 (respondent no. 4) is very much annoyed and given threat to kill her.”

6. It has been stated in paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition that the petitioner no. 1 has filed a representation dated 17.09.2020 before the respondent no. 2 which is reproduced below:-

^^lsok esa]
Jheku iqfyl v/kh{kd egksn;]
gkFkjlA
egksn;]
fouez fuosnu gS fd ÁkfFkZuh vk'kk iq=h jke ckcw fuoklh fctyh?kj lluh] Fkkuk lkluh ftyk gkFkjl] tks fd vjfoUn iq= lwjtkHkkuk fuoklh u;k fctyh?kj fctkgjh Fkkuk lkluh ftyk gkFkjl ds lkFk ifr&iRuh ds :i esa jg jgh gSA ÁkfFkZuh ckfyx gS rFkk viuk Hkyk cqjk lkspus esa iwjh rjg ls l{ke gS ysfdu gekjs firk th ge yksxksa ds bl fj'rs ls cgqr gh ukjkt gS rFkk gesa tku ls ekjus dh /kedh ns jgs gS fnukad 24-8-2020 dks gekjs firk th rFkk Fkkuk lkluh ds dqN iqfyl okys vjfoUn ds ?kj ij vk;s vkSj cksys vxj yMdh gekjs gokys ugha fd;k rks cgqr cqjk gksxk vkSj /kedh fn;s fd rqe yksxksa dks QthZ eqdnesa esa Qalk nsxsA gekjs firk us iqfyl ds lkeus gh /kedh fn;k fd rqe nksuksa dks tku ls [kRe djs nsxsA ge nksuks dh tku [krjs esa gS rFkk ge nksuksa cgqr Mjs gq, gSaA
vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd gekjs ÁkFkZuk i= ij lgkuwHkwfriwoZd fopkj djrs gq, ge yksxksa dks lqj{kk Ánku djus dh d`ik djsA
lnk vkHkkjh jgsxhA
ÁkfFkZuh
fnukad% 17-09-2020
vk'kk iq=h jke ckcw
fuoklh fctyh?kj lluh
Fkkuk lkluh] ftyk gkFkjlA**

7. From perusal of the writ petition, we find that none of the pages of the writ petition bear signature of either of the writ petitioners. The writ petition is neither accompanied by an affidavit of the petitioners nor it is accompanied with declaration of the counsel for the petitioners.

8. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the petitioner no. 1 is married with one Sri. Mahesh Chandra. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner no. 1 has obtained a decree of divorce from her husband Mahesh Chandra. In the alleged representation, it has been stated that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are living as husband and wife. The fact of the case as briefly noted above shows that the petitioner no. 1 is legally wedded wife of Mahesh Chandra who has not been even impleaded as respondent.

Questions:

9. F