Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1278 (GUJ)

Arunbhai Dhudabhai Joshi v. State of Gujarat

2017-07-13

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, inter-alia, with a prayer to direct the concerned respondents to produce the corpus, namely, Rasilaben, who is the wife of the petitioner, before this Court and, thereafter, hand over her custody to the petitioner. 2. It is stated in the petition that the Corpus is the legally-wedded wife of the petitioner and has been illegally confined by respondents Nos. 4 to 6. That there was love and affection between the petitioner and the corpus and they both being major in age, decided to live together as husband and wife, since their relationship was going on for many years. On 08.06.2017, the petitioner and the corpus solemnized their marriage and got it registered with the Competent Authority. A copy of the Marriage Registration Certificate of the petitioner and the corpus has been annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. 3. The petitioner and the corpus have also sworn an affidavit narrating the entire facts and circumstances including the aspect that the corpus has voluntarily married the petitioner and left the house without any coercion. A copy of the affidavit dated 08.06.2017 is annexed at Annexure-B to the petition. 4. It is stated that after the marriage, the corpus and the petitioner lived together as husband and wife. However, all of a sudden on 15.06.2017, the father, uncle and other relatives of the corpus as well as some persons from the village, beat up the petitioner and forcibly took away the corpus with them. While leaving, they threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. 5. In view of the above incident, the petitioner addressed a written complaint dated 20.06.2017, to respondent No. 2-District Superintendent of Police, Sabarkantha. A copy of the said complaint is annexed at Annexure-C to the petition. 6. As some time had elapsed and no action was taken on the complaint, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 8. Rule was issued in the petition on 28.06.2017 When the petition is taken up today, Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the corpus is present before the Court. 9. We have spoken to the corpus at great length in Chambers. She has not denied the factum of her marriage to the petitioner. 8. Rule was issued in the petition on 28.06.2017 When the petition is taken up today, Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the corpus is present before the Court. 9. We have spoken to the corpus at great length in Chambers. She has not denied the factum of her marriage to the petitioner. However, she has stated that she was coerced into marrying him and now she has married respondent No. 5-Vipulbhai Ramchandbhai Bhethadiya with the consent of her parents and family members and would like to live with the said Vipulbhai. 10. The corpus has vehemently refused to speak with the petitioner and has stated that she does not give any credence to the marriage performed with the petitioner. As she has now married respondent No. 5 and is living with him at his village, she would like to go with respondent No. 5. 11. We have also spoken to the petitioner in Chambers. He has stated that there was a relationship between him and the corpus for the past three years and it was at the behest of the corpus that they took the step of leaving home and getting married, as the parents of the corpus would not accept their relationship. 12. The petitioner states that the corpus may be under some pressure, therefore, she is denying her relationship with him and is refusing to go with him. 13. We have once again ascertained the wish and desire of the corpus, who has repeatedly stated before us that she is not under any pressure from any person and would like to go with respondent No. 5 of her own free will. 14. We have also spoken to respondent No. 5, who has shown us photographs of the rituals that took place between the corpus and respondent No. 5, including the photographs of the celebrations and village feast. Respondent No. 5 has stated that now he has married the corpus, who has been accepted by his parents and family members. 15. The petitioner has stated that he, his parents and other family members, are not able to live in village Sardarpura, as there is a threat from the village people due to his having gone away with the corpus. Out of fear that some untoward incident may take place, he and his family members are forced to live at another place. The petitioner has stated that he, his parents and other family members, are not able to live in village Sardarpura, as there is a threat from the village people due to his having gone away with the corpus. Out of fear that some untoward incident may take place, he and his family members are forced to live at another place. They have been forced to desert their house and lands as they were threatened with dire consequences by the villagers. 16. We have spoken to respondent No. 4-Laxmanbhai Dhudabhai Silava, the father of the corpus, who has stated that insofar as he is concerned, there will be no threat to the petitioner or his family. Shri Prahladbhai Karsanbhai Silava, son of the Village Sarpanch and a leader of the village, is also present. He states that insofar as his entire family is concerned, they would not threaten the petitioner or his family members and would permit them to stay peacefully in the village. The petitioner has also undertaken before us that he would not try to contact the corpus or interfere in her married life with respondent No. 5. 17. We have taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances that have emerged before us from the averments made in the petition, the documents annexed thereto as well as the interaction we have had with the parties. 18. It certainly appears from the material on record that there was some kind of a relationship between the petitioner and the corpus which culminated in a marriage that has been registered on 08.06.2 017. There is a photograph of the corpus and the petitioner, exchanging garlands, on record, which belies the statement of the corpus that she was forced to marry the petitioner. However, now the corpus appears to have changed her mind, for reasons best known to her. She has stated that she is not under any pressure, therefore, we have to accept her statement at face value. As the corpus is aged about twenty-three years and has unequivocally expressed her wish and desire to live with respondent No. 5, whom she is stated to have married on 13.06.2017, we permit the corpus to go with whosoever she is desirous of living with. The corpus has accompanied respondent No. 5 in the presence of the petitioner and her parents, from our Chambers. 19. The corpus has accompanied respondent No. 5 in the presence of the petitioner and her parents, from our Chambers. 19. In view of the above facts and circumstances, it transpires that there was no illegal detention of the corpus by respondents Nos. 4 to 6. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to close the proceedings. 20. The petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.