Mahendra Rawat vs Mukhya Sachiv Garh Vibhag

Sheel Nagu, J.—This petition under Article 226 seeks issuance of writ of habeas corpus on the foundational facts that the petitioner''s wife (corpus) has been held in unlawful captivity of the respondent No. 4 Jagdeesh Rawat who is father of the corpus.

Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner and the corpus have entered into the matrimonial bond on 20.2.2014 as per the certificate issued by the Shiva (Dahejrahit) Adarsh Vivah Samiti, Jhansi, U.P., has been annexed. It is further contended by the learned counsel of the petitioner husband that he and his wife (corpus) are of marriageable age.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has filed progress report inter lia annexing the statements of the corpus recorded on 10.3.2014 u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. in relation to crime No. 15/14 registered at Police Station Belgarah District Gwalior for alleged offences punishable u/Ss. 363 and 366 IPC against the unknown persons. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been made accused subsequently. Thus the progress report filed by the State supported by statement of prosecutrix recorded u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. of the corpus discloses that she is 17 years old based upon her date of birth 5.9.1996. In the said statement u/S. 164 Cr.P.C. the corpus has disclosed that she was kidnapped by certain persons and was taken from one place to another. Rape has also been alleged against these persons. No allegation against the petitioner has been made. From the conspectus of the above said facts it is evident as per the school mark sheets that the prosecutrix was below the age of 18 and the alleged marriage as contended by the petitioner took place between the corpus and the petitioner. There is no other proof of age of the corpus and therefore the date mentioned in the mark sheet produced by the State is treated to be true.

The corpus has categorically stated before this court when she was questioned in-camera hearing and also in her statement recorded u/s. 164 Cr.P.C. that she has not got married to any one. The factum of marriage as contended by the petitioner further gets doubtful. The corpus has further expressed her wish to continue residing with his father where she is residing on her sweet will.

In view of the above, this petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.