Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 122 (RAJ)

Aman Arya @ Abid v. State

2006-01-10

HARBANS LAL, V.K.BALI

body2006
Judgment V.K. Bali, J.-Aman Arya @ Abid through present petition filed by him under Article 21 of the Constitution of India have made following prayers:-“It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Honble Court may very graciously be pleased to direct the non-petitioners to produce Smt. Deepika Somani before the Court and after knowing her wishes allow her to go with the petitioner; Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Honble Court deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner with costs and compensation.” 2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, parents of Ms. Deepika Somani entered appearance and hotly contested the matter. The twin contentions raised by them pertained to legality of marriage between the petitioner and their daughter Ms. Deepika Somani as also Ms. Deepika Somani being a minor, incapable of giving her consent for marriage. 3. At the very initial stage of proceedings, we recorded the statement of Ms. Deepika Somani on 05.05.2005. She had expressed her desire to go with her husband, the petitioner herein. The statement of Ms. Deepika Somani dated 05.05.2005 shall be read as a part of this order. 4. After hearing arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties on two points projected by the parents of Ms. Deepika Somani as stated hereinabove, we passed a detailed order on 16.05.2005 and called for a report on two crucial issues pertaining to the legality of marriage between the petitioner and Ms. Deepika Somani and age of Ms. Deepika Somani. This report was to be given by the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur after giving adequate opportunity to the parties has forwarded a detailed report dated 05.07.2005, the concluding and operative part of which reads as under:- “To conclude, I may reiterate my findings on the aforesaid two issues which are based on the oral and documentary evidence available before me as follows:- 1. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur after giving adequate opportunity to the parties has forwarded a detailed report dated 05.07.2005, the concluding and operative part of which reads as under:- “To conclude, I may reiterate my findings on the aforesaid two issues which are based on the oral and documentary evidence available before me as follows:- 1. Theage of Deepika Somani as on the dated 23.03.2005 when marriage between the petitioner and Deepika Somani is stated to have been solemnised has been found to be 17 years and one month approximately as the entries as regards her birth in the Vital Register and Admission Register maintained by Zanana Hospital, Jaipur have led me to infer that her date of birth is 25.02.1988. 2. As per explanation b of Section 2(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and various Judgment s of Honble Supreme Court and High Courts, the petitioner is found to be a Hindu. Further, he has also converted to Hinduism by undergoing the ceremony of purification or expiation (Suddhi) in Arma Samaj Temple, Needar before PW 3 Shri Bhagwan Sahay who has issued a certificate Exhibit P-7 to this effect.” 5. We have gone through the findings recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur given by him in his report dated 05.07.2005 and we are satisfied that correct findings have been given by him after properly appreciating the evidence. 6. From the contents of the report what transpire is that the petitioner has solemnised marriage with Deepika Somani and the said marriage is valid. Deepika Somani however, was minor at the time of marriage and would attain majority on 25.02.2006. When the case was pending, Deepika Somani was residing in Mahila Sadan, Jaipur. Every time, she was brought to the Court, she made a statement and expressed her desire to live with her husband, the petitioner herein. Even today, she has expressed her desire to live with her husband. The objection raised by the parents of Deepika Somani in view of the findings recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in so far as valid marriage of Deepika Somani is concerned has to be repelled. Even today, she has expressed her desire to live with her husband. The objection raised by the parents of Deepika Somani in view of the findings recorded by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in so far as valid marriage of Deepika Somani is concerned has to be repelled. In so far as the objection raised with regard to the age of Deepika Somani is concerned, once the Counsel was confronted that Deepika Somani would continue to live in Mahila Sadan upto 25.02.2006 and would go to her husband only thereafter, if she may express her desire, to live with him, even then, he had nothing more to urge. 7. In view of the above discussion, we allow this petition. We further direct that Deepika Somani would live with her husband or with her parents after 25.02.2006, wherever she expresses her desire to go. 8. In view of the explanation submitted by Dr. Chandramohan Maheshwari, practicising in Mahesh Hospital, Jaipur, the contempt notice issued to him is hereby discharged.