Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1411 (RAJ)

Kanhaiyalal Saini v. State of Rajasthan

1996-12-16

GYAN SUDHA MISRA, RAJENDRA SAXENA

body1996
Honble MISRA, J. – This petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the father of the detenue-Sangeeta on the averment that although she is living in the custody of her husband-Rajan- respondent No. 5 herein, she has been subjected to intolerable torture. The details in this regard have been given out in the petition wherein the petitioner has stated that his daughter Smt. Sangeeta is disgusted with the kind of life she is compelled to lead at her husbands place since her husband and her brother-in- law (husbands elder brother) have been demanding valuables like television, motor-cycle and other articles and also cash amount of Rs. 50,000/-. She is also prevented from meeting her father and on & off she is severely beaten up at times with electric wire. It has been alleged that the detenues father came to know about his daughters plight from an un-known source due to which he tried to meet his daughter-Sangeeta, but the respondents No. 5 and 6 did not allow her to meet him, as a result of which, he was compelled to move this Court for producing her daughter. He has, thus, sought to allege that his daughter-Sangeeta has been kept in illegal confinement of her husband-Rajan and is subjected to tor- ture. (2). On these averments, this petition for habeas corpus has been moved, on which, a show show cause notice was issued to the respondents, in response to which, the respondents No. 5 & 6 have appeared. The father of the detenue-petitioner herein is also present and the SHO Police Station Dausa has also produced the detenue-Sangeeta in this Court. (3). We have heard Mr. M.C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.R. Yadav, the learned Government Advocate and have also thought it proper to get the statement of detenue-Sangeeta recorded. She has clearly stated that she is being subjected to torture as alleged due to which it has become impossible to con- tinue to live with her husband. She has thus, corroborated the version of her father. She has also expressly declared her desire to go and live with her father because she apprehends danger to her life by her husband. She has thus, corroborated the version of her father. She has also expressly declared her desire to go and live with her father because she apprehends danger to her life by her husband. She has further stated that her two minor chlidren are extremely attached to her and if she is permitted to go and live with her father, it will not be possible for her to leave behind her two children namely Kumari Puja aged 5 years and Rahul aged 3 years respectively. Hence, she has prayed that the children also be allowed to accompany her. (4). Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and prima facie being satisfied that it will not be just and proper under the prevailing circumstances to compel the detenue-Sangeeta to live with her husband, we direct that she should be allowed to live with her father as per her choice and she may, therefore, be reached from this Court to her fathers place under police custody. Although, there is no averment in the writ petition regarding accompaniment of the children with the detenue, but taking into consideration the welfare of the two minor children and the fact that it will be traumatic to compel the children to live without their mo- ther, we consider it in the interest of justice to allow the children to live with their mother. With these directions, this habeas corpus petition is allowed.