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 · 372 wordsVipul M. Pancholi, J
Learned Advocate, Mr. Harshil Dattani, submitted that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
1.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Harshil Dattani, is permitted to file his appearance and the registry is directed to accept the same.
RULE. Learned APP, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, waives service of rule for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, whereas, learned Advocate, Mr. Harshil Dattani, waives service of rule for Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in which, the petitioner i.e. husband of the corpus has prayed that the respondent Police Authority be directed to produce the corpus i.e. wife of the petitioner before this Court.
Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Vijay U. Thakor, for the petitioner, learned APP, Mr. Bhargav Pandya, for respondent State of Gujarat and Police Authority and learned advocate Mr. Harshil Dattani for the respondent Nos.4 and 5.
Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred the averments made in the memo of the petition and thereafter, submitted that the petitioner got married with corpus viz. Alkaben on 29.9.2022. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred the certificate of registration of marriage which is produced on record at Annexure-A/11. It is submitted that thereafter now, the corpus i.e. wife of the petitioner is in illegal custody of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioner therefore urged that appropriate direction be issued to the respondent police authority to produce the corpus before this Court.
Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, the respondent-Police Authority has brought the Corpus Alkaben before us. This Court has interacted with her. Her age is 21 years. She has stated before us that he has not been illegally detained by her parents, as alleged in the petition. However, she wants to go with the present petitioner, who is her husband.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of present case, when the corpus has shown her willingness to go with present petitioner-husband, We are inclined to allow present petition.
Accordingly present petition is allowed. The corpus is permitted to accompany her husband. Rule is made absolute.