Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1871 (RAJ)

Anupam Panday v. State of Rajasthan

2007-09-28

CHATRA RAM JAT, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2007
JUDGMENT 1. 1. This petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner-Anupam Panday alleging that Parul Khandelwal is his legally married wife, who is a major and has been pressurised by her father Shri Prem Chand Gupta and her brother Shri Puneet Gupta to live with them and leave her husband Shri Anupam Panday. 2. Prima facie, it was difficult to accept that the so- called detenu-Parul is under illegal detention due to which the petitioner was ordered to deposit a sum of As. 5,000/- by way of security with the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur, which has been complied. This is 1o how this matter has been listed today for further arguments. Fortunately, the investigating team have been able to produce the so-called detenue-Parul before this Court and she has appeared. In her statement, she submitted that she is aged about 19 years and is a student of B.Sc. II year. She has categorically stated that she has already given her statement under Section 164 of the Cr PC., whereas she has denied the factum of wilful marriage with the petitioner. She has stated that she was pressurised by the petitioner to marry him and went to the extent of alleging that he had attempted to commit rape on her. 3. We again questioned her in open court whether she wants to get her statement recorded in camera before the Dy. Registrar (Judicial), but she stated that she is not interested in giving her statement for the second time and stands by the statement, which she got recorded earlier under Section 164 Cr.PC. 4. It is, thus, obvious that the so-called detenue is not under illegal detention of her parents and she is living willingly with her father and brother. 5. We have already indicated in our order dated 07.09.2007 that personal differences between the formalities cannot be allowed to be brought before the Court by way of habeas corpus petitions whether it is between a couple or between the son-in-law or father-in-law or any other person. The petitioner, in our view, should have been cautious enough to ascertain out of Court whether, in fact, the so-called detenu is under the illegal detention of her father and brother and she was pressurised to live with them. 6. The petitioner, in our view, should have been cautious enough to ascertain out of Court whether, in fact, the so-called detenu is under the illegal detention of her father and brother and she was pressurised to live with them. 6. The parties cannot be allowed to indulge into abuse of the process of law and make the investigating team run around and solve their family disputes, which has happened in the instant case. It is difficult to believe under the existing circumstances of the instant matter, that the petitioner was not aware of the fact that the so-called detenu, who he claims to have married, is not living willingly with her father and her brother as the factum of coercion is completely missing and it cannot be inferred that the alleged detenue is not living willingly with her father and brother as alleged by the petitioner. 7. In our considered opinion, the petitioner ought not to have filed this habeas corpus petition, so as to pressurise the father and brother of the girl by using the provision of habeas corpus petition using it as a tool of pressure. If the so-called detenu-Parul, in fact, had married the petitioner and she is not honouring the same, the remedy for the petitioner is before the Family Court for restitution of conjugal right where the onus will be on him to prove that he had entered into a legal and valid marriage with the petitioner. But this cannot be allowed to be decided by way of a habeas corpus petition as it is well that a petition for habeas corpus can be held maintainable only when the detenu is under an illegal detention of anyone who is not allowed the freedom of liberty to live with anyone as per her consent. 8. The detenue has categorically stated in open court as also in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC. that she was living with her father and brother willingly and was not under any pressure. Yet, the petitioner had the audacity to file this habeas corpus petition, which in our view, is a complete abuse of the process of law. 9. Consequently, he has unnecessarily dragged the investigating team also to settle his personal dispute by dragging the entire family and the investigating team into the court. Hence, the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner with the Dy. 9. Consequently, he has unnecessarily dragged the investigating team also to settle his personal dispute by dragging the entire family and the investigating team into the court. Hence, the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, which was deposited by the petitioner with the Dy. Registrar (Judicial) shall be paid to the SHO, Gandhinagar, who has succeeded in tracing out the detenu and produced the girl before the Court. 10. Thus, the sum of Rs 5,000/- shall be handed over to the SHO, Police Station Gandhinagar who in turn shall deposit this amount in the Police Welfare Fund and a receipt thereof shall be produced in the Registry through the Government Advocate S.S. Sharma. 11. The consequence of the entire exercise is that this writ petition has no grain of substance as the petitioner has unnecessarily involved the investigating team to settle his personal dispute, which he is having with the so-called father-in-law and the so-called wife and whether the detenue is the illegally married wife of the petitioner or not, is a subject matter of legal scrutiny, if the petitioner moves the family Court for restitution of his conjugal rights. But in so far as this habeas corpus petition is concerned, the same is dismissed with cost as indicated hereinbefore.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******