AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
18 paragraphs · 343 wordsPetitioner has filed the habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Detenue has been produced in the Court today and has stated that she is aged about 19/20 years and has performed marriage with Respondent No. 6
of her own free will and is presently happily residing with him. She has stated that she does not want to accompany the petitioner. She has further
stated that she had filed petition bearing CRWP No. 276/2020 along with Respondent No. 6 in Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking protection of
her life and liberty. However, the said petition was later withdrawn on 06.03.2020.
Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the detenue is minor but in the FIR itself it has been averred that as per Aadhar Card,
age of the detenue has been mentioned as 20 years, though, she is aged 16 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Annexure-
1 to support his argument, wherein, date of birth of a female child is mentioned as 03.11.2004. Names of the parents in Annexure-1 are mentioned as
Sukhi and Chote Khan.
However, learned counsel for private respondents has submitted that as per the information received by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005,
in the register maintained by the Municipal Corporation, Alwar, sex of the child born on 03.11.2004 was not mentioned. Detenue has other siblings
also. Copy of the said information has been placed on record.
Thus, it is a disputed question of fact as to whether the detenue is a minor as per Annexure-1 or is aged 20 years as stated in her Aadhar Card. This
Court cannot go into disputed questions of fact while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the detenue has
appeared in the Court and has stated that she has performed marriage with Respondent No. 6 of her own accord and is presently happily residing with
him.
Hence, no ground for further interference by this Court is made out.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.