Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1638 (GUJ)

Amrish Bhagatbhai Jethwa v. State of Gujarat

2017-09-13

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 with a prayer to issue appropriate directions to respondent No. 2, Police Inspector, Jesar Police Station, to produce the corpus Maluben, who is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he and Maluben were in a love relationship since the last three years. Ultimately, they decided to marry each other and as Maluben's parents were against the match, they decided to run away together. After leaving the house of her parents, the corpus and the petitioner got married on 16.07.2017, at Bhavnagar. A Certificate of registration of marriage has been annexed at Annexure-B to the petition. 3. There is no doubt regarding the fact that the corpus is an adult, her date of birth being 15.12.1998, as per the School Leaving Certificate annexed at Annexure-A to the petition. It is averred in the petition that after the marriage was solemnised on 16.07.2017, four relatives of the corpus caught hold of the petitioner and forcibly took her away against her wishes. The corpus has stated before us that the persons who took her away were (1) Bharatbhai Aatubhai, (2) Aalubhai Bababhai and (3) Bholubhai Jitubhai, accompanied by one another person. It is further the case of the petitioner that the corpus was kept at home and not permitted to go out and under the above circumstances, he has preferred the present petition. 4. Rule was issued in the petition on 05.09.2017, making it returnable today. When the petition is taken up, Mr. Ronak Raval, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submits that the corpus is present in the Court along with respondent No. 3, her father. 5. We have spoken to the corpus Maluben in Chambers. She has stated that she has gone with the petitioner of her own free will and has married him voluntarily. There is no element of threat or coercion in the marriage. She has stated that she wants to go with the petitioner and live with him as she is his legally wedded wife. However, she has expressed a strong apprehension that respondent No. 3 and his relatives, especially the persons who forcibly took her away, would cause her bodily harm and may even attempt to take her life. She has stated that she wants to go with the petitioner and live with him as she is his legally wedded wife. However, she has expressed a strong apprehension that respondent No. 3 and his relatives, especially the persons who forcibly took her away, would cause her bodily harm and may even attempt to take her life. She has stated that the life of the petitioner as well as his relatives may also be endangered at the hands of her parents and their relatives. She has, therefore, requested that Police protection be provided to her and the petitioner in order to avert any untoward incident. 6. Pursuant to service of notice of Rule, respondent No. 3-Vihabhai Lakhabhai Bhamar, father of the corpus has remained present in person. We have spoken to him and informed him regarding the decision of the corpus to go with the petitioner, whom she has married. He has been apprised of the legal position that the corpus, being over eighteen years of age, cannot be restrained and if she desires to go with the petitioner, she is legally competent to do so. 7. Taking into consideration the unequivocal wish and desire of the corpus to go with the petitioner and live with him, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order: (1) The corpus is at liberty to accompany the petitioner, if she so desires. The corpus has accompanied the petitioner from the Court premises. (2) The petitioner and the corpus shall be escorted by the Police authorities upto their destination. (3) The Police Sub Inspector, Mota Khuntwada, shall ensure that no untoward incident happens and that the lives and property of the petitioner, the corpus and family members of the petitioner are protected. To ensure this, he shall provide Police protection at State expense for an initial period of two weeks. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahuva, shall monitor and supervise the situation and take appropriate action, as and when required. (4) The Police authorities shall take all possible measures, including taking of Bond, etc. from all persons whom they consider to pose any threat or danger to the petitioner and the corpus. 8. The petition is allowed, in the above terms. Rule is made absolute accordingly. 9. Direct Service of this order is permitted.