The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) last week imposed ₹1 lakh costs on a couple after finding that they had concealed the fact that the man was already married to secure interim protection from police harassment and coercive action.

Dismissing their petition, a bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani noted that the couple had moved the Court with a false affidavit and with material concealment and even secured interim protection earlier by "concealing the fact and playing fraud with the Court".

Briefly put, the petitioners had initially sought directions to the police authorities not to harass them in any manner, not to adopt any coercive process against the petitioners, and not to create any hindrance in their lives.

When the petition was first heard on May 26, the petitioners' counsel submitted that both were major and were living like husband and wife. It was claimed that they had not been able to solemnize their marriage because of fear of the petitioners' parents and that, if protection was granted, they would marry forthwith.

The Court, while observing that “when two major persons are willing to marry each other, no one can prevent them from doing so, and no authority can create any hindrance in their peaceful living”, permitted them to solemnize their marriage within one month and get it registered thereafter.

It also directed that they should not be harassed by any private or public authority, including the police, until the next date.

Now, when the matter was taken up again on August 4, the petitioners appeared before the Court and their counsel informed the Bench that they could not comply with the direction to marry because petitioner No. 2/Man was already married.

The man told the Court that he had filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, before the Family Court, Balrampur. He stated that the divorce petition had been filed on April 3, 2026.

The High Court noted that this fact had “neither been disclosed in the writ petition nor before the Court” when the earlier order granting protection was passed.

The Court observed that the petitioners had initially attributed their inability to marry solely to fear of their parents and had sought protection on that basis.

In view of this, the Court stated that the petition had been filed with a false affidavit and with material concealment.

The Court further remarked thus:

"The interim order has also been obtained by concealing the fact and playing fraud with the Court, which is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court".

Furthermore, the Bench also found that the petitioner no. 2 had also made a false statement regarding his occupation.

The Division bench also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein it was held that the Court is duty-bound to impose heavy costs on petitioners who approach with unclean hands.

It also noted that a litigant who attempts to “pollute the stream of justice” or touches the “pure fountain of justice with tainted hands” is not entitled to interim or final relief.

Against this backdrop, finding that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with heavy costs, the Court dismissed it and directed the petitioners to jointly and severally pay ₹1 lakh within 4 weeks before the Senior Registrar of the Court.

The Court directed that if the costs were not paid within the stipulated period, the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue through the District Magistrate concerned.

It further directed that failure to recover the amount within the prescribed period be reported to the Contempt Court for appropriate action.

Case title - Kusum Maurya And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559

Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 559

Click Here To Read/Download Order