Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCR.A/1716/2010 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1716 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
======================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
ANWARBHAI
AADAMBHAI VAHORA
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & ORS
======================================
Appearance :
MR
SK BAGGA for Applicant
MR LB DABHI APP for Respondent Nos.1 2
MR
DN VAKIL for Respondent No.3 to
6.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 23/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)
1 By
means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus
directing respondent No.2 to produce the corpus-`Reshmaben’, who is
allegedly in illegal detention of respondent No.3-Manoj
Bhuddabhai Rathod and to hand over her custody to the petitioner.
2 As
per the averments made in the petition, daughter of the petitioner
`Reshmaben’ has been missing from his house. He searched her in the
village and also amongst his relatives, but he could not find out
the whereabouts of his daughter and therefore he informed the police
station about the missing of his daughter. However, the Police
Officer has not taken any effective steps to trace out the missing
daughter of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is filed
for the reliefs to which the reference is made in earlier paragraph
of the judgment.
3 This
Court, vide Order dated 8.9.2010, issued Notice to the respondents,
which was made returnable on 23.9.2010. Thereafter the matter was
adjourned from time to time as the corpus could not be traced out.
4 Today
when the matter is called out, Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP, upon
instructions received from Mr. R.V. Asari, Superintendent of Police,
Kheda and Mr. S.B. Vaghela, PSI of Limbasi Police Station, who are
personally present in the Court, states that corpus-Reshmaben
has been traced out from the custody of respondent No.3- Manoj
Bhuddabhai Rathod and they have brought the corpus with the
assistance of Woman Constable of Limbasi Police Station and want to
produce the corpus before the Court. Therefore, we have permitted to
produce the corpus before us.
5 We
have ascertained the wish and willingness of the corpus –
Reshmaben and also inquired from her that as to whether she is in
illegal custody of respondent No.3-Manoj Bhuddabhai Rathod.
She has in unequivocal terms stated before us that her marriage with
the respondent No.3 has been solemnized on 17.9.2010 as per the
Hindu rites and customs and since then she is residing with the
respondent No.3 as his lawfully wedded wife. She has further stated
that she is very happy with the respondent No.3 Manoj Bhuddabhai
Rathod as she is his lawfully wedded wife. She has further stated
before us that she is not under illegal detention of respondent No.3,
with whom her marriage has been solemnized on 17.9.2010 and she does
not want to go to her parental home and she wants to go to her
matrimonial home.
6 So
far as her age is concerned, there is no dispute that her date of
birth is 20.9.1991. The said fact is not disputed by the petitioner
as he has produced the xerox copy of the Birth Certificate at
page-7 as Annexure-`A’ to the petition. Therefore, there is no
dispute with regard to her age as her date of birth is 20.9.1991,
Therefore, she is major even on the day of the marriage. Therefore,
she is sui juris and, hence, no fetter can be placed upon her
choice of person with whom she wants to reside.
7 In
view of the aforesaid state of affairs, it cannot be said that the
corpus-Reshmaben is in illegal detention of respondent No.3 Manoj
Buddhabhai Rathod. Therefore, we have permitted her to go with
respondent No.3 Manoj Buddhabhai Road.
8 Seen
in the above context, instant Habeas Corpus petition lacks merit and
deserves to be rejected.
9 At
this stage, Mr. Harmish Shah, learned Advocate for Mr. B.K. Bagga,
learned Advocate for the petitioner, upon instructions received from
the petitioner, does not press this petition and seeks leave to
withdraw the same.
10 The
prayer made by him has not been opposed by Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned
APP for the respondent No.1 State of Gujarat and Mr. D.N. Vakil,
learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
11 Hence,
leave to withdraw the petition is granted. The petition stands
rejected as it is withdrawn. Notice is discharged.
(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)
(B.N.
MEHTA, J.)
pnnair
Top