Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 475 (PNJ)

Partap Singh v. State Of Punjab

2000-05-02

T.H.B.CHALAPATHI

body2000
Judgment T.H.B.Chalapathi, J. 1. This petition is filed for directing the respondents to produce Suman Bala the daughter of the petitioner alleging that she has been in illegal custody of respondents Nos. 7 to 9. 2. According to the petitioner his daughter Suman Bala was born on 8.9.1982 and she has been friendly with one Pooja who is the sister of Deepak alias Lucky respondent No. 7 and both of them used to go together in the locality and Pooja introduced her brother to Suman Bala. Thereafter respondents Nos. 7 to 8 kidnapped Suman Bala on 25.1.2000 when she was going to Shiv Mandir and she did not come back to the house. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the police which was registered as FIR No. 16 dated 1.2.2000. Therefore the petitioner is seeking a direction to produce his daughter Suman Bala and get her released from the illegal custody. 3. At this stage it may be mentioned that both respondent No. 7 and Suman Bala filed a petition in this Court in Crl. Misc. No. 6161-M of 2000 to quash FIR No. 16 dated 1.2.2000 alleging that the date of birth of Suman Bala was 8.9.1981 and both of them got married at Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha on 27.1.2000. Along with the petition they also attached the marriage certificate. In that petition a report has been called for from the SSP Hoshiarpur to verify the age of Suman Bala and whether both of them have been legally married. SSP accordingly submitted a report to this Court. On the basis of the said report this Court directed the respondents in that petition to take such action as is required under law in accordance with the report of the SSP Hoshiarpur. Said Suman Bala also filed a petition in Crl. Misc. No. 8373-M of 2000 for a direction to her father Partap Singh namely the petitioner in this petition and her uncle not to harass her and also not to interfere with her matrimonial life. In that petition the following order was passed :- "The petitioner alongwith Deepak Kumar whom she claims to have married filed Crl. Misc. No. 6161-M of 2000 seeking similar relief. In that petition a report has been called from the SSP Hoshiarpur by order dated 23.2.2000. Accordingly report has been submitted. In that petition the following order was passed :- "The petitioner alongwith Deepak Kumar whom she claims to have married filed Crl. Misc. No. 6161-M of 2000 seeking similar relief. In that petition a report has been called from the SSP Hoshiarpur by order dated 23.2.2000. Accordingly report has been submitted. According to the said report the date of birth of the petitioner is 8.9.1981 and the petitioner and Deepak Kumar produced the marriage certificate issued by Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha along with photographs taken at the time of marriage. On the basis of the report by an order dated 10.3.2000 respondents have been directed to take such action as is required under law in accordance with the report of SSP Hoshiarpur. In view of the above facts, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the SSP Hoshiarpur to take such steps as are required for the safety of the petitioner and Deepak Kumar." 4. Now this petition has been filed by the father of Suman Bala. Notice was given. In pursuance of the said notice Suman Bala was produced in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the date of birth of Suman Bala was 8.9.1982 and it was wrongly recorded as 8.9.1981 in the school registers. Therefore according to the learned counsel Suman Bala was a minor at the time of her alleged marriage with respondent No. 7 and he further urged that the SSP has not taken into account the entry of birth in the register of births and deaths maintained by the Municipal authorities. But the fact remains that at the time of admission the date of birth of Suman Bala was mentioned as 8.9.1981 in which case she attained majority on the date of her alleged marriage with Deepak. Though there are contradictory versions as to the age of Suman Bala it is not for this Court to determine whether Suman Bala was a minor or major at the time of marriage. I gave opportunity to the learned counsel for the petitioner to put questions to Suman Bala to satisfy himself whether Suman Bala on her own will married Deepak. It is no doubt true that Suman Bala belongs to Rajput caste and Deepak belongs to Mehra caste and the marriage between them is not to the liking of the parents of Suman Bala. It is no doubt true that Suman Bala belongs to Rajput caste and Deepak belongs to Mehra caste and the marriage between them is not to the liking of the parents of Suman Bala. The learned counsel for the petitioner questioned Suman Bala in my chamber. Suman Bala categorically stated to the learned counsel that she married Deepak on her own will without any pressure and she is living happily with Deepak. In these circumstances I am not in a position to direct the handing over of Suman Bala to the petitioner. Though the petitioner and her daughter Suman Bala belong to a different community to that of Deepak, it is better for the parents to reconcile themselves and see that their daughter lives happily without any further litigation. The petitioner may if so advised seek any other appropriate remedy available to him under law. This petition is accordingly disposed of.