High CourtsDivision Bench

Vachana Ram vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 17 July 2023 · Citation: (2023) 07 RAJ CK 0047

HON’BLE JUDGES
Arun Bhansali, J · Rajendra Prakash Soni, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 224 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

7 paragraphs · 317 words
1.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the nature of Habeas Corpus with the submissions that wife of the petitioner, has left the matrimonial home without informing to anyone and that she may be in illegal detention of the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

2.

By order dated 05.07.2023, a copy of the petition was directed to be supplied to learned AAG, who was directed to file a factual report.

3.

Factual report has been produced, inter-alia, indicating that the corpus was located and her statements were recorded, wherein, she has specifically indicated that she left the matrimonial home on her own will and was living with respondent No.4 as per own will and that she is not under any kind of illegal detention.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents be directed to produce the corpus before this Court, as there is likelihood that she may have been under influence of the respondent No.4 when her statements were recorded, as she is a mother of four years old boy, whom also she has left.

5.

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the statement of the corpus recorded by the police, wherein she has specifically indicated that she has studied till Class 8th and left the matrimonial home being aware that she is mother of four year old boy and that she is not under the illegal detention of respondent No.4, neither wanted to go with her parents nor with the petitioner and wanted to live with respondent No.4 only.

6.

In view of the nature of categoric statements given by the corpus, which have been video-graphed, we do not find any reason to direct production of the corpus before the Court, as no case of illegal detention is made out in the petition.

7.

The petition is, therefore, dismissed.