CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Mohan Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 25 August 2023 · Citation: (2023) 08 RAJ CK 0107

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Bhansali, J · Rajendra Prakash Soni, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 161, 164
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 255 Of 2023
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

10 paragraphs · 411 words
1.

This petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the submissions that his minor daughter Ms. ‘K’ is in wrongful confinement of respondent Nos. 4 to 6, therefore, she may be recovered and her custody be handed over to the petitioner.

2.

By order dated 25.07.2023, copy of the petition was ordered to be served on learned AAG, who was directed to complete his instructions in the matter.

3.

On 16.08.2023, time was granted to recover the corpus and on 23.08.2023, the corpus was presented before the Court along with her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. indicating that she is not willing to go with her parents and, therefore, she was lodged at Balika Grah, Jodhpur.

4.

However, as her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. had not been recorded, the matter was adjourned for today.

5.

For the said purpose, today, the corpus along with her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been produced.

6.

We have gone through her statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein she has indicated that she went with respondent No.4, as per her own wish and allegations against him are factually incorrect. She also expressed her desire to be with respondent No.4.

7.

We have conferred with the corpus in camera, wherein the corpus reiterated what was indicated by her in her statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. However, she also indicated that she has met with her parents and indicated to them that she is willing to go with them on the condition that she be not married off before the age of 18 years/against her wishes, as even, respondent No.4 is not of valid marriageable age, he is 18 years only.

8.

On the said indications, we have also talked to the parents who are present in Court, who readily accepted the indications made by the corpus regarding not marrying her off before the age of 18 years/against her wishes and that she will not be ill-treated, in presence of the corpus.

9.

In view of the above fact situation, wherein the corpus is now willing to go with her parents and the parents have assured her, as noticed hereinbefore, that she will not be ill-treated, she would not be married before the age of 18 years/against her wishes, the custody of the corpus be handed over to the parents and the Balika Grah, Jodhpur be informed accordingly.

10.

The petition stands disposed of.