DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Supreme Court stays criminal proceedings against Swami Prasad Maurya in daughter’s marital dispute case

Bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar issues a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on an appeal filed against the decision of the Allahabad High Court
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
In the complaint, the man, who claimed to be a journalist, has alleged that Sanghmitra married him as per Buddhist rituals before the 2019 parliamentary elections, assuring him that they will make it public after the polls. File Photo
Advertisement

New Delhi, August 9

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed criminal proceedings against former Uttar Pradesh minister Swami Prasad Maurya in connection with case of a marital dispute involving his daughter, ex-MP Sanghmitra Maurya.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar issued a notice to the Uttar Pradesh government on an appeal filed against the decision of the Allahabad High Court.

Advertisement

Maurya has moved the top court against an order of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court which refused to quash criminal proceedings against him in a case filed by one Deepak Kumar Swarnkar, who claimed to be Sanghmitra’s husband.

Earlier, a special MP-MLA court had declared Swami Prasad and Sanghmitra absconding in a case related to harassment and issuing threats to a person.

Advertisement

In the complaint, the man, who claimed to be a journalist, has alleged that Sanghmitra married him as per Buddhist rituals before the 2019 parliamentary elections, assuring him that they will make it public after the polls.

But after the elections, she became an MP and since then she and her father have started harassing him with the help of police and private goons, Deepak has said in his complaint.

Swami Prasad and Sanghmitra had approached the high court to quash these proceedings, but the court had rejected their petitions.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper