Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 385 (GUJ)

Pratik Vitthalbhai Dudhat v. State of Gujarat

2017-02-15

AKIL ABDUL HAMID KURESHI, BIREN VAISHNAV

body2017
ORDER : AKIL KURESHI, J. The petitioner claims to be the husband of one Manisha, according to him, the marriage having taken place on 02.07.2016 This habeas corpus petition is filed by him alleging that his wife Manisha is detained illegally by her father and other relatives. Earlier also, this very petitioner had filed habeas corpus petition being Special Criminal Application No. 5365 of 2016 on such allegations. This petition was disposed of by an order dated 03.08.2016 by the Division Bench recording that Manisha had categorically stated that she had neither been illegally detained nor confined by her father and she was at her free will residing with him. 2. These developments were of course disclosed in this habeas corpus petition, however, the petitioner had further stated that Manisha was not happy at her parents' house and immediately after returning, upon disposal of the earlier habeas corpus petition, started calling the petitioner insisting that he should take her back. She also confided in the petitioner that she was not kept well at the house of the father and that she was living in high stress. She also stated that her life was not safe there. 3. Despite the earlier habeas corpus petition by the present petitioner having failed, the question of life and liberty of a citizen being involved, we had issued notice on 08.02.2017 in this habeas corpus petition while putting the petitioner to notice that if even this time around Manisha informs the court that she is willingly residing with her father and the allegations in the petition are not true, we may consider imposing cost on him. 4. Today in response to notice issued, Manisha was present. We spoke to her in the chamber. She emphatically stated that her earlier statement recorded by the court on 03.08.2016 was voluntarily made. There was neither any force nor any compulsion for her to stay at her father's house. She was not detained nor confined in the house. She had no intention of going with the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is in the habit of harassing her and bothers her by showing up repeatedly outside her house. Recently, she had got engaged and only to sabotage her engagement, the petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition so that her to be in-laws would come to know about it. In fact, the petitioner is in the habit of harassing her and bothers her by showing up repeatedly outside her house. Recently, she had got engaged and only to sabotage her engagement, the petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition so that her to be in-laws would come to know about it. She clearly stated that after 03.08.2016 she had no contact with the petitioner. She had not made any phone calls. The question of informing the petitioner about her unhappy state at her father's house or being kept there against her wish simply does not arise. 5. As we had apprehended, the petitioner had made reckless and serious allegations which were false to his knowledge only with a view to invoking the habeas corpus jurisdiction of this court. Fully understanding that once a habeas corpus petition is disposed of on the free statement of the girl being recorded, it would be difficult to persuade the court to call the girl again, the petitioner made averments to the effect that immediately after returning to the father's house, the girl had been in touch with the petitioner conveying him about her plight at the father's house and about her life being in danger. This was an unfortunate attempt on the part of the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the court when the facts to his knowledge would be insufficient to secure a notice in the present case. Whether this attempt was made to sabotage the girl's engagement or not, we are not concerned. The fact remains that the respondent no. 3 was made to respond to a habeas corpus petition second time and the girl concerned was brought before the court under our orders second time though in the first round itself she had shown unwillingness to go with the petitioner. 6. Under the circumstances, while dismissing this habeas corpus petition, we impose cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner. This shall be done latest by 28.02.2017 Such amount when deposited shall be paid over to respondent no. 3. Notice is discharged.