Devi Dayal vs State of Haryana and Others

Jora Singh, J.—The present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to produce Rinki minor daughter of the Petitioner before this Hon''ble Court and to handover the custody of Rinki to the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the alleged detenue-Rinki is less than 15 years of age and on 27.11.2010 at about 7 AM, she had gone to school but did not return. Thereafter, Petitioner and his relatives approached the parents of Respondent No. 4 with request to hand over Rinki to the Petitioner but the Respondents No. 4 and 5 started quarrelling with the Petitioner and his relatives. He further states that a complaint was sent to Police Station and in pursuance of said complaint, FIR 320 dated 03.12.2010 under Sections 363/366 IPC was registered against Respondents No. 4 and 5 but till today no action has been taken by the police.

Reply filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 to 3 is on the file and is to the effect that the complaint was marked to ASI Satyawan, who had gone to the house of Respondents No. 4 and 5 but the alleged detenue-Rinki and Respondent No. 4 were not found. Mam Chand and Rehati Devi parents of Respondent No. 4 were present and they stated that the alleged detenue-Rinki has performed marriage with Respondent No. 4.

Vide order dated 23.03.2011, ASI Tarsem lal, Investigating Officer, who was present in Court was directed to make efforts to trace the alleged detenue and Respondent No. 4.

Respondent No. 4 appeared through his Counsel, Mr. B.S. Makar, Advocate, who filed power of attorney and the same is taken on record.

Today Rinki (detenue) present in Court has produced the photocopy of certificate of her secondary examination and the same is taken on record. On query put to Rinki (detenue) daughter of the Petitioner, stated that she is major and she will not accompany the Petitioner.

At the asking of Court, Rinki (detenue) had a talk with her father i.e. Petitioner and after that, again on query put to Rinki (detenue) stated that she has married with Respondent No. 4 and she is not ready to accompany her father.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that Rinki (detenue) is minor and marriage of Rinki with Respondent No. 4 is null and void.

Learned State Counsel argued that in view of the complaint by the Petitioner FIR 320 dated 03.12.2010 under Sections 363/366 IPC was registered. Detenue present in Court stated that she has married with Respondent No. 4 against the wishes of her parents. If, Rinki is minor and marriage of Rinki is null and void then separate remedy is available with the Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 stated that Rinki present in Court is the legally wedded wife of Respondent No. 4. Her date of birth is 06.07.1992 and in case as per Petitioner, Rinki is minor then Petitioner can file suit for declaration to the effect that marriage of Rinki with Respondent No. 4 is null and void.

According to the photocopy of the certificate produced in Court today date of birth of Rinki is 06.07.1992 and Rinki has stated that she has married with Respondent No. 4 against the wishes of her parents and she is not ready to accompany the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, Rinki is minor whereas allegation of Respondent No. 4 and Rinki is that she is major. Now point is that in case Rinki is minor then Petitioner can file suit for declaration that marriage of Rinki with Respondent No. 4 is null and void. Court is yet to opine in FIR No. 320 IPC as to whether Rinki was kidnapped or not.

In view of the statement made by Rinki (detenue), present in Court, the present petition has become infructuous and is dismissed accordingly.