A writ of mandamus cannot protect an illegal relationship, particularly when one party is still legally married, as it contravenes statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Renu Agarwal, J.

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioners with prayer for issuing writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents for not disturbed the marriage life of petitioners.

2. Heard Sri. S.D. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Ravi Kant Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, Sri. Yogesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for State and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the petitioners have attend the age of majority. As per high school certificate-cum-marks sheet the date of birth of petitioner no.1-Smt. Pooja Devi is 08.12.1992 and she is aged about more than 31 years. As per the high school certificate-cum-marks sheet of petitioner no.2 Rinku Kumar is 12.06.2002 and he is aged about more than 23 years. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 earlier marriage with respondent no.3 Pramod Kumar, who is habitual drinker and regularly beaten to the petitioner no.1, due to which she left the house of respondent no.3 and started live with petitioner no.2 of her own free will as live-in-relationship alongwith her child. The respondent no.3 (husband of petitioner no.1) threaten the petitioners and disturbing their relationship, hence they moved this petition seeking protection.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submitted that petitioner no.1 is legally wedded wife of respondent no.3 and she lived with petitioner no.2 without any divorce decree from the competent court in adultery. Therefore, their relationship can not be protected by law and opposed the prayer.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State opposed the prayer and relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Writ-C No.18743 of 2020 (Asha Devi and another v. State of U.P. and 3 others), in which two question are framed by the Court, which are as follows:-

(I) Whether the petitioners, who claim themselves to be living together as husband and wife; can be granted protection when the petitioner no.1 is legally weeded wife of someone else and has not taken divorce so far ?

(ii) Whether protection to petitioners as husband and wife or as live-in-relationship can be granted in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when their living together may constitute offences under sections 494/495 IPC ?

6. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench of this Court, relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Director of Settlement, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the High Court's power for issuance of mandamus and held as under:-

"Coming to the third question, which is more important from the point of consideration of High Court's power for issuance of mandamus, it appears that the constitution empowers the High Court to issue writs, directions or orders in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is, therefore essentially, a power upon the High Court for issuance of high prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental or ordinary legal rights, which may come within the expression 'for any other purpose'. The powers of the High Courts under Article 226 though are discretionary and no limits can be placed upon their discretion, it must be exercised along recognised lines and subject to certain self-imposed limitations. The expression 'for any other purpose' in Article 226, makes the jurisdiction of the High Courts more extensive but yet the Court must exercise the same with certain restraints and within some parameters. One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the Court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person