High CourtsDivision Bench

Dil Kumar & Anr vs State Of H. P. & Ors

High Court Of Himachal Pradesh · Decided on 5 August 2021 · Citation: (2021) 08 SHI CK 0044

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J · Satyen Vaidya, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Writ Petition No. 7 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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 · 314 words

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

1.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., for the grant of following

substantive relief:-

a) Issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or any other writ, order or direction as may be deemed by this Hon’ble Court directing the

respondents herein to produce the daughter of petitioner No. 1 before this Hon’ble court and to direct the concerned respondents to satisfy this

Hon’ble Court that the custody of the daughter of the petitioner No. 1 is not illegal or to direct the concerned respondent to immediately release

said Pushpa Devi.

2.

The case of the petitioners are that the alleged detenue is the daughter of petitioner No. 1 and lawful wedded wife of petitioner No. 2, who has

been forcibly kept under confinement by respondent No. 4, therefore, her corpus may be directed to be produced before this Court.

3.

On 03.08.2021, the official-respondents were directed to obtain instructions and pursuant to such order, respondents have produced the alleged

detenue before us.

4.

We have questioned her in detail in presence of her Advocate. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a major aged about 24 years. She has

expressed firm decision to stay with respondent No. 4 and not to go with the petitioners. She, however, admits her marriage with petitioner No. 2 and

also acknowledges her daughter. But as observed above, she is firm in not going with the petitioners and claims to be residing with the fourth

respondent out of her own free will and volition.

5.

Under such circumstances, the detenue being a major is free to reside with whomsoever she likes.

6.

The petition is disposed of accordingly. However, the petitioners are at liberty to avail such remedy(ies) as available to them/him in accordance with

law.