AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.M. Kapadia, J.
1 Rule. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP appears and waives serviceof notice of Rule on behalf of Respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat as well as Respondent No. 6 Police Inspector, Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara City, whereas Respondent No. 2 Karma Sudhakar Jagdale appears in person and waives service of notice of Rule. Notice of Rule need not beserved to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 since corpus Jashodaben -daughter of the Petitioner has been produced by Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale, therefore, their presence isn ot required to adjudicate this matter.
By filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed to is suewrit of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, direction and/or order directing Respondents to produce corpus Jashodaben- daughter of the Petitioner before this Court and gave her custody to her.
It is inter alia averred in the petition that the Petitioner is the mother of corpus namely Jashodaben, aged about 20 years, who has been adducted by Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale and other Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 areprotecting them.
3.1 It is also averred that the Petitioner has written an application to PI, Vadodara and the Police Commissioner,Vadodara city and also made an application u/s 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the JMFC, but all in vain. Still, her daughter Jashodaben is not found out or returned home. The Petitioner has therefore, filed instant petition and prayedfor the relief to which the reference is made in the earlier paragraph of the judgment.
This Court vide order dated 26.11.2010 issued Notice toRespondents, which was made returnable on 10.12.2010. On returnable date, since the corpus was not traced out, the matter was adjourned to 21.12.2010 i.e. today.
Today, when the matter is called out, Mr. LB Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the Respondent - state of Gujaratupon instructions received from Respondent No. 6 -Police Inspector, Makarpura Police Station, Vadodara City, who ispersonally present before the Court, states that corpus Jashodaben is found out from the custody of Respondent No. 2 - Karma Sudhakar Jagdale and he has given understanding to Respondent No. 2 to come with the corpus before the Courtand accordingly, Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdalehas brought the corpus before the Court and he wants toproduce the corpus before the Court. We therefore, have permitted him to produce corpus Jashodaben before us.
We have ascertained wish and willingness of corpus Jashodaben. She has in unequivocally terms stated before us that today she has come from the house of Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale with whom she wants to stay in ajoint family, who has produced her before the Court. Shehas further stated that she is not in illegal detention of Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale nor his family member. She has stated that she, at her own will, voluntarily, accompanied Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale. She has further stated that her birth date is13.6.1990. The said fact is not disputed by Mr. GR Manav,learned advocate for the Petitioner, as he himself has produced the School Leaving Certificate of the corpus, wherein the date of birth is shown as 13.6.1990. Therefore, as on today, she is more than 18 years of age. She has alsostated before the Court that age of Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale is 20 years and therefore, she has not married with him. She has further stated that as and when Respondent No. 2 Karma Sudhakar Jagdale attains age of 21years, she would like to marry with him and she has categorically stated that she does not want to go with hermother - the Petitioner, who is personally present before the Court, at her parental home.
In the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 234 the Supreme Court has observed that a woman who has attained majority is free to stay in any place she likes without constraintsby her parents or husband. What is held by the Supreme Court in the above referred to case is that against her wishes a major girl cannot be sent to Nari Niketan or toher parents house.
On the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case and more particularly in view of the statement made by corpus Jashodaben before the Court that she is notin illegal detention of Respondent No. 2 -Karma Sudhakar Jagdale nor his family member as well as she does not want to reside with her mother Lilaben - Petitioner, who is personally present before the Court so also in view of there ported decision of the Supreme Court as referred to herein above, since the corpus Jashodaben is more than 18years of age, she is sui juris and hence, no fetters can beplaced upon her choice of the person with whom she has to stay. We have therefore, permitted her to go wherever she wants to go.
Seen in the above context, the Habeas Corpus petition lacks merit and deserves to be rejected.
At this stage, Mr. GR Manav, learned advocate for the Petitioner does not press this petition and seeks leave to withdraw the same.
Mr. Dabhi, learned APP for the Respondent - State of Gujarat has no objection if leave as prayed for is granted.
In view of this, this Habeas Corpus petition is disposed of as it is withdrawn. Rule is discharged.