Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1157 (GUJ)

Veenaben W/o Manojkumar Jain v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-03

A.J.SHASTRI, ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2017
ORDER : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. This habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner, inter-alia, with a prayer to direct the respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 to produce the corpus - Nidhi, respondent No. 5 herein, who is the daughter of the petitioner, before the Court. It is alleged that the corpus has been illegally confined by the above respondents and she may be produced in order to ascertain her free will and wishes. 2. It is stated in the petition that the corpus, who was at the relevant point of time studying in XII Standard at Ahmedabad, went missing from her house on 19.4.2017 at about 4.30 p.m on the pretext of attending a farewell party of one of her colleagues. When she did not return, the petitioner and other family members made attempts to locate her. On the said date, the corpus was minor (her date of birth being 26.6.1999). The petitioner filed an F.I.R being I-C.R No. 101 of 2017 against the respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Sections 360 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code on 20.4.2017 3. The notice was issued in the petition on 2.6.2017, making it returnable on 5.5.2017 4. Mr. Vijay U. Goswami, learned advocate, states that he has received the instructions to appear on behalf of the petitioner and prays for permission to file the Vakalatnama. He is permitted to do so. 5. Heard Mr. Vijay U. Goswami, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 - State of Gujarat, Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. Maulik N. Shah, learned advocate for respondent No. 4. 6. When the petition is taken up today, Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the corpus has been traced and is present before the Court today. 7. We have spoken to the corpus, who has informed us that she has got married to respondent No. 2 - Mehul Jain on 20.4.2017. It is pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that respondent No. 2 is at present 20 years of age. However, we are not inclined to express any opinion regarding this aspect of the matter which does not pertain to the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction which this Court is exercising. 8. It is pointed out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that respondent No. 2 is at present 20 years of age. However, we are not inclined to express any opinion regarding this aspect of the matter which does not pertain to the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction which this Court is exercising. 8. The corpus has categorically stated before us that she wants to live with respondent No. 2, who is her husband. The petitioner as well as husband of the petitioner - Shri Majonkumar Jain, parents of the corpus as well as Shri Suresh Jain, father of respondent No. 2, are present before the Court. Mr. Chetan K. Pandya, learned advocate for respondents Nos. 2 and 3, has submitted that the petitioner and her husband as well as respondent No. 3, father of respondent No. 2 - Mehul, have arrived at an agreement on certain terms and conditions and have accepted the marriage between the corpus and respondent No. 2, as stated in the “Settlement Agreement”. A copy of the “Settlement Agreement” dated 27.6.2017 has been submitted, which is taken on record. 9. Considering the fact that the corpus is desirous of staying with respondent No. 2 and parents on both sides have accepted the situation in terms of the “Settlement Agreement”, nothing further remains for adjudication in the petition, as it is clear that there has been no illegal confinement of the corpus by respondents Nos. 2 to 4. 10. We express no opinion regarding the “Settlement Agreement” or the age of respondent No. 2. 11. The petition stands disposed of, in the above terms. Notice is discharged.