Satbir Singh vs Rajbir Singh

B.S. Nehra, J.

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce detenu Gurpreet Kaur wife of the petitioner and for taking appropriate action against respondent No. 1.

The petitioner has alleged that detenu Gurpreet Kaur is his wife and daughter of respondent No. 1. Her date of birth has been described as 20.7.1972. He got married to her on 19.3.1991. They applied for the marriage certificate under the Hindu Marriage Act and the same was issued on 2.4.1991. Respondent No. 1 allegedly reconciled with the marriage and recognised the petitioner as his soninlaw but later on changed his mind and, therefore, did not allow the petitioner to see the detenu as he now wants to arrange her marriage somewhere else. He (petitioner) has filed a civil suit for permanent injunction praying that respondent No. 1 should be restrained from remarrying the detenu. One Shri Sukhwant Singh Sandhu, Advocate, Patiala, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 as well as the detenu on 25.5.1991 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Patiala and also filed memo of appearance. Respondent No. 1 filed Vakalatnama on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the detenu as her guardian. The petitioner further alleges that the detenu is major and his legally wedded wife but she is being illegally detained by respondent No. 1.

In the reply filed by respondent No. 1, a preliminary objection has been taken that the detenu is a minor girl and according to her matriculation certificate, copy Annexure R2, was born on 20.7.1974. He has denied that he ever recognised the petitioner as his soninlaw. In the separate affidavit filed by Bharat Singh, Station House Officer, Police Station Moonak, respondent No. 2, it has been stated that for tracing and producing Gurpreet Kaur raids were conducted at the house of her father, viz., respondent No. 1 at village Hamirgarh Police Station Moonak, but his house was found locked and the neighbours disclosed that he had shifted with his family to some other place.

On 13.5.1992, it was stated by the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the petition has been rendered infructuous as the petitioner has gone abroad. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, stated that he had no instructions in this regard. On this, the learned Counsel for the respondent undertook to file an application duly supported by an affidavit that the petitioner had gone abroad. Respondent No. 1 has now filed the affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner has gone to U.S.A. A perusal of the averment in the petition and the replies by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shows that the allegations of the petitioner regarding Gurpreet Kaur being detained by respondent No. 1 have been controverted by respondent No. 1 and that respondent No. 2 could not trace the detenu. The learned Counsel for the petitioner attempted to place reliance on the birth certificate, copy Annexure P2, according to which Gurpreet Kaur was born on 20.7.1972 and, therefore, has attained majority. The learned Counsel, therefore, urged that respondent No. 1 has no locus standi to detain her since she is the wedded wife of the petitioner. This birth certificate stands controverted by the matriculation certificate, copy Annexure R2, according to which the detenu was born on 20.7.1974 and was, therefore, a minor at the time of the filing of the petitioner. It was contended by learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that the birth certificate produced by the petitioner is a fake document.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the case be entrusted either to the District Judge, Chandigarh, or to the District Judge, Patiala, to hold an enquiry as to the whereabouts of Gurpreet Kaur, detenu, and if she is found to be in the custody of respondent No. 1, she should be handed over to the petitioner. On careful consideration of the contention of the petitioner''s learned Counsel, this court is of the view that in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would not enter into an investigation of disputed facts. A similar view was taken by the Allahabad High Court in Vasu Deo Ojha and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1987(1) Allahabad 678. In Mohammad Ashaq v. Muneer Hussain and others, 1987(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 471, it was held by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as a means of securing judicial determination of any other question except illegal confinement whether partial or absolute. In case, disputed questions of facts arise and other remedies are available, resort must be had to ordinary remedies. Replying on the ratio of the judgments in Vasu Deo Ojha''s case (supra) and Mohammad Ashaq''s case (supra) and having regard to the fact that the petitioner has gone abroad as stated by respondent No. 1 in his affidavit (which has not been controverted by the petitioner) this Court does not deem it appropriate to refer the matter to the District Judge for any further enquiry. The petitioner is at liberty to resort to an ordinary remedy, if so advised, for appropriate adjudication. With these observations, this petition being devoid of merit, is dismissed.