The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has rejected an application filed by Smt. Mohini Verma seeking to recall its earlier order dated January 9, 2025, in the Ketan Rastogi vs State of U.P. case. The order had quashed an FIR after the warring spouses reached a compromise. The bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi observed that the subsequent family court judgment cannot be a ground to reopen a matter already settled by mutual consent.
Read in Hindi
Background
The case has a tangled history involving a series of matrimonial disputes and cross-litigations between Ketan Rastogi and Mohini Verma. The couple had married on June 28, 2020, according to Hindu rites. However, disputes arose soon after, leading to criminal complaints and cases under Sections 498A, 323, 504 of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act.
Later, both sides decided to bury the hatchet and executed a written compromise deed on February 17, 2024, in the presence of their parents and lawyers. The document, verified by the Senior Registrar of the High Court, declared that neither party would raise future claims or cases against the other. Based on this, a coordinate bench of the High Court allowed their writ petition in January 2025, quashing the FIR registered at Thakurganj Police Station, Lucknow.
The Recall Plea
In May 2025, Smt. Mohini Verma filed an application to recall that order. Her counsel, Manish Soni, argued that subsequent to the High Court's compromise order, a family court in Lucknow dismissed Ketan Rastogi’s petition under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for declaring the marriage null and void). This, she claimed, had created confusion regarding her marital status.
Read also:- Jammu & Kashmir High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Jaffer Hussain Butt Under Public Safety Act
According to her, she had withdrawn her own divorce petition under Section 13 of the Act in good faith, relying on the settlement. Now, with the family court’s dismissal, her "status had fallen in dilemma" - neither divorced nor recognized as a lawful wife.
Court's Observations
The bench, however, was not convinced. It noted that the family court’s May 6, 2025, order was a separate judicial pronouncement and not under challenge in the current proceedings.
"There is no occasion for us to enter into the merits of the same," the judges observed.
Justice Rizvi, writing for the bench, went on to discuss the legal concept of void marriages under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. He referred to several Supreme Court rulings, including Deoki Panjhiyara v. Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad (2013), Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav (1988), and M.M. Malhotra v. Union of India (2005), emphasizing that marriages violating the basic conditions of Section 5 are void ipso jure - void from inception and non-existent in the eyes of law.
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Dismisses 82-Year-Old’s Plea Over Disputed SC/ST Land Transfer Under PTCL Act
The bench pointedly noted a troubling factual gap: neither party could state when Mohini Verma, who had earlier converted to Islam and married Dr. Zafar Sayeed in 2013 as "Sana Fatima," had reverted to Hinduism before marrying Ketan Rastogi. On being questioned about how a Hindu marriage ceremony could occur between persons of different religions,
"neither the counsels nor the parties themselves could give any satisfactory reply," the court remarked.
The judges elaborated that any declaration about marital status must come from a competent court in a proper proceeding. “Such declarations strike at the very core of society,” the order read.
The High Court clarified that its earlier compromise order merely quashed criminal proceedings arising from the FIR — it did not and could not determine the legality of the marriage itself.
“The declaration in light of Section 11 can only be made by a competent court of law,” the bench said, cautioning against mixing the two jurisdictions.
Decision
Concluding the matter, the bench declined to recall its previous order. “We find no good ground warranting interference with the said order dated 09.01.2025, merely on the premise of some subsequent development,” Justice Rizvi held. The recall application dated May 27, 2025, was thus rejected.
The court added a final note: if any party felt aggrieved by the family court’s order of May 6, 2025, they were free to pursue appropriate remedies as provided by law.
With that, the long and complex legal tussle - at least before the High Court - came to a quiet close.
Case Title: Ketan Rastogi and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow and Others
Case Number: Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 1314 of 2024
