The 'parens patriae' doctrine should only be invoked in exceptional cases, and the Court's role in matters of marriage is limited to upholding constitutional freedoms.

JUDGMENT

V. K. Jadhav, J. - Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking issuance of the writ of the Habeas Corpus against the respondents directing them to produce his minor daughter namely Khaleda Subiya Junned Ahmed Khan and to hand over her custody to him.

3. Brief facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows :

According to the petitioner, his minor daughter was kidnapped from Aurangabad on 22.10.2019. Consequently, his brother-in-law has lodged the report with Chawani Police Station, Aurangabad pursuant to which FIR bearing No.339 of 2019 came to be registered against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC. After few days, the petitioner's wife had informed to the concerned Police Station and pointed out that one Furkan S/o Sannulla Khan is responsible for the incident and he has kidnapped their minor daughter in collusion with his parents and other accused persons. Thus, the concerned Police Station has recorded the statement of the petitioner and his wife, however, inspite of recording the statement of the petitioner and his wife, the concerned Police Station has not proceeded to take steps to find out the whereabouts of their daughter. The petitioner has approached the concerned Police Station for inquiry, several times. However, every time he was informed that the necessary steps are being taken to search their daughter and the petitioner will be informed when his daughter is found. According to the petitioner, the police authorities for the reason best known to them, are not proceeding with the investigation of the crime in its true spirit and consenquently, their minor daughter could not be traced out. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to approached this Court for seeking the writ of Habeas Corpus against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

4. By order dated 12.03.2021, this Court has directed the respondent Nos.2 and 3 - Police Authorities to search and produce the minor daughter of the petitioner namely Khaleda before the Court. Thereafter, time to time this Court has monitored the progress and recorded the same in the order dated 30.03.2021, 08.04.2021, 22.04.2021 and 29.04.2021. On 06.05.2021 the learned Prosecutor has informed to this Court that the team was sent to Hyderabad to trace out the ATM centre from where the amounts were withdrawn by the probable kidnapper from the accounts of his father Sannulla Khan Kalandar Khan and the said ATM centre was traced out at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Thus by recording the same, the matter was listed on 10.06.2021.

5. On 10.06.2021, the missing girl Khaleda was produced before the Court. She was accompanied by her mother-in-law Sultana and father-in-law Sannulla Khan. The missing girl was brought to the Court along with their child. This Court (Coram : Ravindra V. Ghuge and B. U. Debadwar, JJ.) has interacted with the missing girl in the open Court and also carefully perused the statement recorded by the police. It was revealed that the child has been born to the missing girl on 13.09.2020, admittedly, she was nine months short of becoming an adult. As per the version of the missing girl, she got married on 03.06.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner has expressed that the parents of the missing girl desired to see her and sepak to her and in view of the above, the petition was listed on 14.06.2021 at 2.30 p.m. by directing the police authorties to escort the missing girl and her child, to keep them in Savitribai Phule Shaskiya Mahila Vastigruh at Nutan Colony, Aurangabad and protect them till they are produced before the Court on the aforesaid date and time. Accordingly, today i.e. on 14.06.2021, at about 2.30 p.m. the missing girl Khaleda along with her child was produced before this Court again.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. V. Indrale Patil submits that in the peculiar facts of the present case, it would be j