AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Kapadia, J.—Rule. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3,whereas Mr. BA Patel, learned advocate appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The service of notice of Rule need not be served to Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as they are not necessary party.
By filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed to issue writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing Respondent Nos. 3 Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad to produce the corpus Ashaben daughter of the Petitioner before this Court, who is allegedly in illegal detention of Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and to ascertain her wish and to set her at liberty.
This Court vide order dated 16.11.2010 issued Notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 7, which was made returnable on23.11.2010 on condition that the applicant shall depositRs.10,000/-as a cost, to show his bona fide, with the Registry of this Court.
On returnable date, the matter was adjourned since the corpus was not produced before this Court. On 9.12.2010,Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP, for the Respondent - State of Gujarat, upon instructions received from Mr. S.M. Parmar, Police Sub-Inspector, Sarkhej Police Station, who was personally present before this Court, stated that pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2010, he had brought the corpus As haben with the assistance of Women Constable, and wanted to produce the corpus before the Court. Therefore, we had permitted to produce the corpus before us.
On production of corpus - As haben, we had as certained her wish and willingness and also inquired from her that as to whether she was in illegal detention of Respondent No. 4. Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel. She had stated before us that her marriage has been solemnized with the Respondent No. 4. Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel on 9.7.2010 as per the Hindurites, which has also been registered and she is the lawfully wedded wife of Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahya bhai Patel. She had further stated that she was not inillegal detention of Respondent No. 4 - Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel, who is her husband. She had also stated that she wants to permanently reside with him at her matrimonial home and does not want to go to the house of the Petitioner - her father.
Since, on that day, Mr. RJ Goswami, learned advocate for the Petitioner was reported to be sick, the matter was adjourned to 13.12.2010 i.e. today, so that final order can be passed in his presence. Therefore, we had handed over the interim custody of corpus As haben to Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel with a further direction that he shall produce her before this Court on 13.12.2010 i.e. today.
Today, Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel has brought corpus As haben with him. Prior to again as certaining wish and willingness of corpus As haben, we have persuaded her to talk with the Petitioner Kanaiya lal Kalidas Patel - her father and her mother as well, who are personally present before the Court. She had talked with them and thereafter, we have again ascertained her wish and willingness in the Chamber. Today also, she has unequivocally terms stated before us that she is not inillegal detention of Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahya bhai Patel. She has also shown her desire to permanently reside with Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel.
In the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 234 the SupremeCourt has observed that a woman who has attained majority is free to stay in any place she likes without constraints by her parents or husband. What is held by the SupremeCourt in the above referred to case is that against her wishes a major girl cannot be sent to Nari Niketan or to her parents house.
In the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case and in view of the statement made by the corpus As haben before us to the effect that she is not in illegal detention of Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel and also in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to herein above, since corpus As haben is suijur is as she is above 18 years of age, no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she has to stay.
Seen in the above context, the Habeas Corpus petition lacks merit and deserves to be rejected.
At this state, Mr. PM Thakkar, learned senior Counsel with Mr. RJ Goswami, learned advocate for the Petitioner does not press this petition and seeks leave to withdraw the same with a prayer that the amount of Rs. 10000/-deposited by the Petitioner, as a condition precedent for issuance of notice, may be paid back to the Petitioner, since the Petitioner is the father of the corpus As haben. Therefore, he was justified in filing the petition so that this Court can ascertain the wish and willingness of the corpus As haben.
Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3as well as Mr. Lakhani, learned senior Counsel with Mr. BA Patel, learned advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 5 have no objection if leave as prayed for is granted. However, they urge that the amount of Rs. 10000/- deposited by the Petitioner shall be paid to the corpus As haben and Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel, as the Petitioner is seeking leave to withdraw the petition.
In view of this, this Habeas Corpus petition is disposed of as it is withdrawn. Rule is discharged.
We have permitted the corpus As haben to go wherever she wants to go.
Since the Petitioner is the father of the corpus As haben, he has filed this petition with a view to as certain as to whether her daughter is in illegal detention of Respondent No. 4 Naresh kumar Dahyabhai Patel or not. Therefore, we deem it expedient to repay the said amount of Rs. 10000/- to the Petitioner.
Registry is therefore, directed to pay back the amount of Rs. 10000/- to the Petitioner upon due verification.