Nirav Sureshkumar Sukhadia vs Police Inspector and Others

A.M. Kapadia, J.

Rule, Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP appears and waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent - State of Gujarat.

By filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed to issue writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent No. 1 to produce the corpus - Hiral before this Court, his lawfully wedded wife, who is allegedly in illegal detention of respondents No. 2 and 3.

2.1 As per the averment made in the petition, he and corpus - Hiral fell in love with each other since last more than 4 years. Therefore, they decided to marry and, accordingly, their marriage is registered before the Registrar of Marriages and the Chief Officer, Patan Nagarpalika, Patan on 9.2.2010. The petitioner is aged about 22 years and corpus - Hiral is aged about 20 years on the date of registration of marriage.

2.2 As per the further averment made in the petition, respondent No. 2, who is the father of corpus - Hiral, is having business in the name and style of ''Sukhadia Sweets and Namkin'' in Choksi Bazar, Radhanpur town. On coming to know about the factum of marriage of the petitioner and the corpus - Hiral, permitted the corpus - Hiral to live with the petitioner. However, subsequently, respondent No. 2 at the instance of the respondent No. 3 grandfather of the corpus, started troubling the corpus illegally and unauthorizedly. The grandfather of the corpus has shown displeasure against the marriage of the petitioner with the corpus.

2.3 As per the further averment made in the petition, corpus - Hiral remained in continuous contact with the petitioner on mobile phone and she has informed the petitioner that she is confined to village Sadra forcibly against her will and is being beaten and physically abused by respondents No. 2 and 3 and that her life is in danger.

2.4 As per the further averment made in the petition, on 9.9.2010 at 11 p.m., respondent No. 3 and one Bharat Rabari, respondent No. 4 came to the house of the petitioner and threatened the parents of the petitioner for dire consequences if the petitioner does not put his signature on the documents typed on Rs. 100 stamp paper which were carried by respondent No. 3.

2.5 Lastly, it is asserted that the life of the corpus - Hiral is in danger, who is her lawfully wedded wife. Therefore, present petition is filed and prayed for the relief to which reference is made in the earlier paragraphs of the petition.

This Court vide order dated 20.9.2010 issued notice to the respondents which was made returnable on 27.09.2010 on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 5000/-as cost with the Registry of this Court to show his bonafide. As per the said order, it was directed to respondent No. 1(A) to produce corpus - Hiral, wife of the petitioner, who is in illegal detention of respondent No. 3, before this Court on returnable date.

Today, when the matter is called out, corpus - Hiral is produced before us by respondent No. 2 - Kanubhai Manilal Soni, father of the petitioner.

We have asked her as to whether averments made in the petition by the petitioner are correct or false and also ascertained her willingness as to where she wants to reside. She has in unequivocal terms stated before us that the averments made in the petition are absolutely correct. She has further stated that she is lawfully wedded wife of the petitioner and she wants to reside with him. She has further stated that now the matter has been settled between the petitioner and her father. Therefore, she does not want to take any legal action against her father and grandfather as there is no dispute between them.

So far as her age is concerned, according to us, she is approximately aged about 20 years as her date of birth is 22.12.1990 and studied upto 12th Standard.

In view of this, there is no minor of doubt that at present she is major and even on the date of the marriage which is 9.2.2010, she was major, which can be seen from the marriage certificate issued by Registrar of Marriage & Chief Officer, annexed by the petitioner vide Annexure C.

In Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 234 Supreme Court has ruled out that the girl having crossed 18 years of age, is sui juris and hence no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person with whom she is to stay.

In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the record of the case and more particularly from the statement made by corpus - Hiral, admittedly, on the date of the marriage, she is more than 18 years. Therefore, she is sui juris and hence no fetters can be placed upon her choice of the person whom she is to stay.

It is true that corpus - Hiral was in illegal detention of her father and grandfather, but since the matter has been settled between both the parties, corpus - Hiral does not want to take any legal action against her father and grandfather, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Bharat Rabari, respondent No. 4.

In view of this, we are not inclined to take strict view of the matter.

Since the marriage has been solemnized between the corpus - Hiral and petitioner and she has shown her willingness to go with the petitioner, we have permitted her to to with the petitioner.

Seen in the above context, the instant petition seeking writ of Habeas Corpus deserves to be allowed by granting the prayer made therein.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and accordingly it is allowed and corpus - Hiral is permitted to go with the petitioner.

At the time of issuance of notice, this Court has directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 5000/- as cost with the Registry of this Court to show his bonafide. Since the petition succeeds, therefore, Registry is directed to refund the deposit of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner by paying account payee cheque drawn in the name of the petitioner, which shall be handed over to Mr. P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate for the petitioner, as requested by him.

Rule is made absolute.