Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1944 (RAJ)

Munni v. State of Rajasthan

2010-11-20

SANGEET LODHA

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against Order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ladnun, whereby the petitioner is directed to be housed at Nari Niketan, Ajmer keeping in view her own interest and safety. 2. The relevant facts in nutshell are that the petitioner entered into marriage with Shri Prahlad Ram of village Sandila, tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur on 26.03.2002. Out of the wedlock, a child Kamal Kishore was born on 16.07.2003. It is stated the harassment by the in-laws resulted in strained relationship between the petitioner and her husband Prahlad Ram and therefore, the petitioner along with her minor child left the matrimonial home and started residing with one Shri Hari Ram at Jaipur. It is stated that the minor child Kamal Kishore is presently studying in S.P. School at Jaipur. 3. The brother of the petitioner lodged a missing report at Police Station, Jaswantgarh, In these circumstances, the petitioner voluntarily appeared before the SPIO, Police Station, Jaswantgarh, who recorded her statement and produced her before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ladnun and made an application for appropriate orders. The petitioner was examined on oath by the S.D.M., Ladnun. She deposed before the S.D.M. in unequivocal terms that she had left her matrimonial home voluntarily and she has started living with Hari Ram at Jaipur. It is stated that the child has been admitted in S.P. School at Jaipur. She further stated that she does not intend to go to her parents or in-laws house. It was stated that she has already filed a divorce petition before the Court at Sujangarh. 4. After due consideration of the statement of the petitioner, the Sub Divisional Magistrate opined that keeping in view the tense situation at the petitioner's parents and in-laws places, in the interest and safety of the petitioner, it will be appropriate that she is kept at Nari Niketan, Ajmer, Accordingly, vide Order impugned dated 05.08.2010, the petitioner was directed to be housed at Nari Niketan, Ajmer. 5. Vide Order dated 19.10.2010, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to produce the petitioner Munni Devi before this Court to ascertain her desire as to where she wants to go. Accordingly, on 25.10.2010, she was produced before this Court. The petitioner declined to go to her parents or her in-laws house. 5. Vide Order dated 19.10.2010, this Court directed the Public Prosecutor to produce the petitioner Munni Devi before this Court to ascertain her desire as to where she wants to go. Accordingly, on 25.10.2010, she was produced before this Court. The petitioner declined to go to her parents or her in-laws house. However, the Court observed that the petitioner was sent to Nari Niketan keeping in view the tense situation at Ladnun and therefore, it was considered appropriate to obtain a fresh report in this regard. Accordingly, the petitioner was sent back to Nari Niketan, Ajmer and the Public Prosecutor was directed to submit the report in this regard on the next date of hearing. 6. On the next date, the Investigating Officer Produced the report describing the situation of the area where the petitioner in-law are residing, however, no report was submitted depicting the situation at the petitioner's parents house therefore, the Investigating Officer was directed to submit the report in this regard as well. 7. After perusal of the report submitted, on 16.11.2010, the Court directed the SHO, Police Station, Jaswantgarh to produce the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi who was housed at Nari Niketan, Ajmer and the min or son Kamal Kishore before this Court. 8. In pursuant to Order dated 16.11.2010, the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi and her minor son Kamal Kishore were produced before this Court by the S.H.O., Police Station, Jaswantgarh on 19.11.2010. 9. On being interviewed, the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi, who was produced in the Court from Nari Niketan, Ajmer stated that she had left her matrimonial home voluntarily and started residing with one Shri Hari Ram at Jaipur. It was stated that her minor son Kamal Kishore is studying in school at Jaipur. She further stated that she does not want to go to her parents' house or to her matrimonial home and she intend to reside with Hari Ram at Jaipur. The Child has also expressed his desire to slay with his mother. 10. Keeping in view the above facts and the consistent stand taken by the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi that she does not want to go to her parents or in-law house and intend to stay with Shri Hari Ram at Jaipur, in considered opinion of this Court, she cannot be compelled to stay at Nari Niketan for an indefinite period. 10. Keeping in view the above facts and the consistent stand taken by the petitioner Smt. Munni Devi that she does not want to go to her parents or in-law house and intend to stay with Shri Hari Ram at Jaipur, in considered opinion of this Court, she cannot be compelled to stay at Nari Niketan for an indefinite period. Moreover, the petitioner being sui juris is free to move wherever she likes to move. That apart, on account of the petitioner being housed at Nari Niketan, the study of the child who is studying in a school at Jaipur is also being adversely affected. 11. In this view of the matter, the Order impugned passed by the S.D.M., Ladnun directing that petitioner be housed at Nari Niketan, Ajmer deserves to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed. The Order impugned dated 05.08.2010 passed by the S.D.M., Ladnun is set aside. The petitioner is set free to go wherever she likes to go. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, SHO, Police Station, Krischanganj, Ajmer is directed to provide police protection to the petitioner until she reaches at the place she wants to go. It is made clear that the child shall stay with the petitioner for the present. However, it will not preclude the husband of the petitioner from taking appropriate legal proceedings claiming the custody of the child, if he so desires.Petition allowed. *******