Gujarat High Court High Court

Jagdishbhai vs Sainath on 8 March, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Jagdishbhai vs Sainath on 8 March, 2010
Author: A.L.Dave,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/329/2010	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 329 of 2010
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

JAGDISHBHAI
@ MANSUKHBHAI SHAMJIBHAI PATEL - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

SAINATH
S/O PURNACHANDRA SHIBBA DAS & 4 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
RAJKUMAR CHAUMAL for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Respondent(s) : 1 - 4. 
MR
LB DABHI APP for Respondent(s) :
5, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 08/03/2010  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE)

Corpus
of the petitioner’s daughter Bindalben is before us. We have talked
to her. She has indicated that she was in love with respondent No.1
and they got married at Mumbai but respondent No.1 never took her to
his house at Shirdi during the entire relationship and after the
marriage never permitted her to talk to her parents and kept her
under constant surveillance. She was not permitted to move out of the
house. It was only on one occasion, after couple of months, that by
chance she could talk to her parents on phone that her location was
traced by the parents and that is how they were located and then
brought to Kapadvanj her parental house. She has today come with her
parents and has expressed a firm desire not to go with respondent
No.1 but to stay with her parents.

2. Respondent
No.1 has a contrary story to tell which is of no relevance for this
petition. We have also talked to respondent No.2 father of
respondent No.1. He has in terms indicated that respondent No.1 has
betrayed him and his family and that he or his family is not ready to
accept any relationship with respondent No.1 or girl Bindal.

3. In
this set of circumstances, since the corpus is produced before us by
the petitioner himself, no further order is required to be passed.
Corpus Bindal, who is major, has expressed her desire to stay with
her parents and she cannot be prevented from doing so. No further
orders are required to be passed in this petition.

4. The
petition thus stands disposed of. Rule is discharged. No costs.

(A.L.

DAVE, J.)

(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J.)

zgs/-

   

Top