Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 472 (ALL)

ANEETA RANA DAROGA v. MOOLCHANDRA RANA

2008-02-28

BARKAT ALI ZAIDI

body2008
BARKAT ALI ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri Raj Karan Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner Aneeta Rana (Daroga) and Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, Advocate for the respondent father Mool Chandra Rana. Counsel for the petitioner filed rejoinder affidavit, supplying copy of the Counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) THIS habeas corpus petition has been filed by an ardent lover with the allegation that his fiancee namely Km. Aneeta Rana (Daroga) is in love with him and since Counsel for both the parties admit that she is 21 year of age and is major, she has a right to marry according to her wishes, but her father is forcing a marriage upon her, against her wishes, and the marriage is scheduled to take place day after tomorrow i. e. on 1. 3. 2008. ( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing from the side of the father has filed counter-affidavit, purporting to be, on behalf of the girl stating therein that she is willing to marry where her father wants her to marry, and that she has no relations with the petitioner. There is also a controversy whether the boy falls within the prohibited family degree, this is a matter, to be decided subsequently. ( 4 ) THE controversy in question has to be subsequently decided, but in the present case, it is just fair and necessary that status-quo should be maintained and for that purpose the marriage of the girl, scheduled to be held on 1. 3. 2008 should be stayed, so that petition may not become infructuous. ( 5 ) MARRIAGE of the girl namely Km. Aneeta Rana (Daroga) is, therefore, stayed till further orders of this Court and the girl shall be produced in this court on the next date of hearing, which is fixed as 12. 3. 2008. Put up on 12. 3. 2008 for hearing. ( 6 ) THE girl is living with respondent-father namely Mool Chandra Rana and he will produce the girl in the Court on the date fixed. ( 7 ) THE Counsel for the respondent-father has been told to communicate this order to respondent father forthwith. The petitioner requests that an advocate Commissioner be appointed to serve the order of the Court so that father of the girl may not plead ignorance about the order of the Court and the marriage may not be gone there. ( 7 ) THE Counsel for the respondent-father has been told to communicate this order to respondent father forthwith. The petitioner requests that an advocate Commissioner be appointed to serve the order of the Court so that father of the girl may not plead ignorance about the order of the Court and the marriage may not be gone there. ( 8 ) SRI Birendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate is appointed as Advocate commissioner and he will go and serve the order of the Court on respondent father. His fees is fixed as Rs. 5,000/- which will be paid to him by the petitioner, and who will certify the receipt of the same to the Court. Marriage Stayed. .