Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1272 (GUJ)

Sureshbhai Manibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-11

A.J.SHASTRI, ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2017
ORDER : ABHILASHA KUMARI, J. 1. This Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to direct respondents Nos. 3 to 9 to produce the corpus, namely, Monali alias Guddi, who is his daughter, from their custody. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the corpus Monali has been illegally detained against her will by respondents Nos. 3 to 9. She was found to be missing from her home ever since 13.06.2017 The petitioner has given a complaint in this regard at the Naroda Police Station on 19.06.2017 In the said complaint, it is stated that the corpus ran away from college and took some ornaments, articles and cash amounting to Rs. 1,72,000/-, belonging to the present petitioner. Since no headway was being made by the police authorities in tracing out the corpus, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. After the issuance of Rule on 29.06.2017, the police authorities started their search for the corpus. Today, when the petition is taken up, Mr. J.K Shah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the corpus has been traced and is present before the Court. All the other private respondents, namely respondents Nos. 3 to 9, are also present before the Court. 4. The corpus is an adult, her date of birth being 02.02.1999 We have spoken to the corpus Monali in Chambers. She has stated that she has married respondent No. 3, Patel Vishalkumar Prahladbhai, on 09.02.2017, by Hindu rites. The police authorities have produced a Certificate of the registration of the marriage between the corpus and respondent No. 3, dated 10.02.2017, under the signature/of the Registrar of Marriages. The said Certificate indicates that the marriage between respondent No. 3 and the corpus was solemnised on 09.02.2017 at Shahpur and the same has been registered on 10.02.2017 at Sr. No. 543 of Volume-I of the Register of Marriages maintained under the Gujarat Registration of Marriages Act, 2006. 5. The corpus has clearly and categorically stated before us that she would like to live with respondent No. 3 who is her husband and she does not want to go to the house of the petitioner, her father. 6. Though neither the petitioner nor his wife are present before the Court today, a cousin brother of the corpus is present. It is submitted by Mr. 6. Though neither the petitioner nor his wife are present before the Court today, a cousin brother of the corpus is present. It is submitted by Mr. Atit D. Thakore and Mr. Bhavesh A. Patel, learned advocates for the petitioner, that the corpus may be permitted to meet her cousin brother. However, the corpus has refused to meet her cousin brother or any other relative from her paternal side, at the moment. 7. Upon instructions from Shri Kavan D. Patel, the cousin brother of the corpus, learned advocates for the petitioners have submitted that the allegations regarding taking away ornaments, articles and cash worth Rs. 1,72,200/- by the corpus are being withdrawn. 8. We have perused the statement of Smt. Shilpa Sureshbhai Patel, wife of the petitioner, as recorded by the police authorities on 02.07.2017, in which she has acknowledged that the corpus has returned the gold-bracelet, a pair of gold ear-rings and a mobile phone manufactured by Intex Company, to her. She has also stated that they are not inclined to take any further steps in the matter. 9. We have spoken to respondent No. 3 as well as his parents, elder brother, Bhabhi, sister and brother-in-law who have been made respondents herein. They have stated that they have accepted the marriage of the corpus with respondent No. 3 and would look after her and treat her well. 10. It has been stated by the corpus in our presence that she has voluntarily left the house of the petitioner with respondent No. 3 voluntarily, without any threat, pressure or coercion from either respondent No. 3, or any of the other respondents. As she has expressed her desire to live with respondent No. 3, there appears to be no truth in the allegations levelled in the petition against respondents Nos. 3 to 9 regarding the illegal detention of the corpus. 11. As the corpus has accompanied respondent No. 3 voluntarily, has married him and is desirous of living with him, nothing further remains for adjudication in the present petition. 12. The petition is, therefore disposed of. Rule is discharged. 13. The corpus is at liberty to accompany respondent No. 3 as per her desire.