Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1834/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1834 of 2011
=========================================================
VINCENTBHAI
DAUDBHAI CHRISTIAN (PRAVASI) - Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for
Applicant(s) : 1,
MR. KL PANDYA, APP PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
MS
NISHA PARIKH for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 11/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)
Respondent
No.3 is produced before us and is represented by learned advocate Ms.
Parikh. The corpus is present before us so also the petitioner.
2. We
have talked to the corpus. We have also talked to the petitioner.
3. The
petitioner has indicated that he has cooperated with the corpus
during married life of 2 and ½ years and during
hospitalization of the brother of the corpus, who is in coma.
According to him, barring initial first year of married life, the
corpus has been staying most of the time with her parents and may
have developed relations with respondent No.3.
3.1 The
petitioner is, however, clear that his marriage with the corpus was a
love marriage. They have been knowing each other for about 8 years
since they were studying together in the same college and till the
marriage or even initially thereafter, respondent No.3 was nowhere in
picture. According to the petitioner, as per say of the corpus,
respondent No.3 got after her when she gave details to the call
centre in respect of her brother’s telephone. The petitioner,
however, does not accept this as whole truth. According to him,
though the petitioner and the corpus both follow Christianity, the
petitioner is Roman Catholic, whereas the corpus is brought up in a
Protestant family and there is difference in the belief.
3.2 The
petitioner has clearly stated before us that it is now not possible
for him to live a matrimonial life or to stay together with the
corpus. We failed to understand, then why the petitioner has brought
this petition for habeas corpus seeking relief to allow the
petitioner to take his wife Jyotsana with him. This does not seem to
us to be genuine petition for habeas corpus. The prayer proceeds far
more than the scope of habeas corpus and the petition does not seem
to us to be genuine.
4. We
have talked to the corpus as well. Indisputably, she is major and
appeared to be well educated just like the petitioner. According to
her, respondent No.3 got after her as he collected the details of her
residence etc. while he was working at a call centre where she had to
give details in respect of her brother’s phone, as her brother went
into coma. Her version is also that she and the petitioner were
having an affair and got married, but she was not accepted by the
parents and other family members of the petitioner. The petitioner
remained out of the house for whole of the day and during that time,
she was not treated well by the relatives. She had to leave the
petitioner’s house under a threat from the respondent No.3 and she
was kept at Rajkot. She had no money and no telephone to contact
anyone. It is only when she learnt about the notice of this Court
having been served to respondent No.3 requiring him to appear before
this Court today that she had on her own left Rajkot, came to her
parents house in Maninagar, Ahmedabad and attended the Court today.
According to her, her matrimonial life with the petitioner has been
sailing in rough seas. Not only the petitioner but his relatives are
also not treating her well and she does not really want to go and
stay with the petitioner, because they are staying in a joint family
and her in laws and relatives are ill treating her while the
petitioner stays out of the house for most of time in a day. She
states that she has come to the Court with her parents and would go
to her parents on her own. She expressed that if the petitioner
stays separately so as to save her from the ill-treatment meted out
to her by her in laws and relatives, she would not mind going and
staying with the petitioner, but the petitioner is not ready to do
so. In such a situation, the corpus is not ready to go and stay with
the petitioner.
5. She
has stated that respondent No.3 has forced her to sign an agreement
of Live-in Relationship at Rajkot and because she was forced to do
so, she has deliberately put a signature which is not her usual
signature. She stated that her normal signature appears on page 34
of this petition and prima facie, we found the same to be different
than the one which is in the Live-in Relationship agreement, xerox
copy of which the corpus has produced on our record.
6. In
light of the above circumstances, as observed by us earlier, we do
not find that this petition is genuine. Neither the corpus wants to
go and stay with the petitioner nor is the petitioner ready to take
her with him. The petition therefore, must fail. We dismiss this
petition directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.25,000/- by way of
costs in the Registry of this Court to be paid to the corpus Jyotsana
whenever she applies. Notice discharged.
7. Considering
the checkered history of the case where the corpus was required to
lodge complaint against respondent No.3 and what she has stated
before us that she was forced to go with respondent No.3 under his
threat and that she was forced by respondent No.3 to execute an
agreement of Live-in Relationship, we would only expect that the
police authorities take appropriate step to protect the interest of
the corpus.
(A.L.
DAVE, J)
(BANKIM.N.MEHTA,
J)
shekhar*
Top