Shyam Lal vs State of Haryana and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Shyam Lal petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing the instant Habeas Corpus Writ Petition alleging that petitioner''s daughter Saroj Rani is minor, her date of birth being 11.10.1994 as per school certificate (Annexure P-1) and she is in illegal detention of respondent No.4 Laxman Dass.

Respondent No.4 in his reply has alleged that engagement of Saroj Rani was performed with respondent No.4 on 20.6.2010 and even petitioner and his wife Kailash Devi, i.e. both parents of Saroj Rani were present at that time. Marriage of respondent No. 4 with Saroj Rani was to be performed on 10.3.2011. However, marriage of Saroj Rani with respondent No.4 was actually performed on 19.6.2011 with free consent of Saroj Rani. It is also alleged that date of birth of Saroj Rani is 11.10.1992 and she is major. Respondent No.4 and Saroj Rani also filed Criminal Misc. No. M-19125 of 2011 in this Court seeking protection as they were apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of petitioner herein and others. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.6.2011. Certificate of National Institute of Open Schooling (An Autonomous Organization of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India) has been annexed as Annexure R4/3 to depict that date of birth of Saroj Rani is 11.10.1992 and she is accordingly major.

Pursuant to order of the preceding date, respondent No.4 is present along with alleged detenue Saroj Rani. On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was allowed to have meeting with Saroj Rani. The case has now been taken up after the said meeting.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that as per School Certificate (Annexure P-1), date of birth of Saroj Rani is 11.10.1994 and therefore, she is minor and, therefore, petitioner being her father is entitled to her custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to reply of official respondent Nos.1 to 3.

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that Saroj Rani is major, her date of birth being 11.10.1992 as depicted by certificate of National Institute of Open Schooling and also depicted by provisional certificate issued by Saraswati Vidya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Bhattu Mandi.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The official respondents in their reply have mentioned both dates of birth as pleaded by the petitioner as well by respondent No.4 according to the respective documents. In so far as documents of petitioner and respondent No.4 are concerned which depict different dates of birth of Saroj Ran, according to certificate ( Annexure P-1), Saroj Rani is minor, her date of birth being 11.10.1994, whereas according to document Annexure R-4/3, Saroj Rani is major, her date of birth being 11.10.1992. This Court in writ jurisdiction would not like to enter into this disputed question of fact regarding date of birth and age of the alleged detenue. On the other hand, Saroj Rani, alleged detenue, states that she has voluntarily married with respondent No.4 and is happily residing with him of her own sweet will.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to have recourse to any remedy available under the law for appropriate relief.