( 1 ) THE above two habeas corpus petitions are being decided by this common judgment. These relate to what are generally referred to as "run away Marriages". Re-Manish Singh manish Singh, petitioner in WP (Crl.)No. 1680/05 seeks release of his wife Suman, allegedly detained by her parents against her wishes. Petitioner Manish Singh was a tenant under respondent No. 2/sh. Ram Sanjeewan Gupta and fell in love with his daughter Suman, respondent No. 4 herein, a young girl of 16 years. Both eloped and got married on 17th May, 2005 at Arya Samaj Mandir, Jamuna bazar, Delhi. They co-habited and lived together after marriage in Delhi and in Bihar.

( 2 ) PETITIONER alleges that Sh. R. S. Gupta and his associates forceably abducted and took away his wife suman on 15th September, 2005. He complained and lodged a report with the police but to no avail. Petitioner thereupon was constrained to file the present petition. Notice in the petition was issued on 30th September, 2005, returnable on 19th October, 2005 with a direction to produce Suman to ascertain if she was being detained against her wishes. Suman appeared in Court in response to the directions. She stated that she was in love with petitioner. She left the parental home of her own to get married. Petitioner did not take or entice her and marriage was her suggestion. She confirms the factum of marriage, co-habitation and living with the petitioner and her in-laws. She, However, stated that since September, 2005 she had been living with her parents and had thought about the entire matter and her future life. She does not now wish to live with the petitioner or resume co- habitation with him.

( 3 ) PETITIONER and Suman were permitted to meet each other in our Chamber without any one else being present, to decide their future course of action. We also spoke to the couple in chamber and to the wife of respondent no. 2, i. e mother of Ms Suman, who had accompanied her to court. Petition was adjourned by a week to enable the parties to reflect further. On 24th October, 2005 Suman appeared and stated that she does not wish to live with the petitioner and wants to live with her parents. In view of her desire conveyed, as above, she was permitted to accompany her parents. No further orders are required to be passed in this Habeas Corpus Petition which stands disposed of. It would be for the petitioner-Manish Singh, if so advised, to avail any legal remedy for enforcement of his matrimonial rights. Re- Ram Ladle Chaturvedi

( 4 ) RAM Ladle Chaturvedi, petitioner in WP (Crl) 1196/2003 is a Daftry working with Indian Airlines corporation. In March, 2003, he lodged a missing person report in respect of his daughter Kumari Lalita, followed by an FIR in April, 2003 alleging that she had been kidnapped by one Prabhu on 26th April, 2003. FIR no. 217/03 was registered under Section 363 IPC, Police station Sarojini Nagar. Notice was issued in the petition and a direction given to the respondents for production of Kumari Lalita. State machinery had been set in motion to trace Kumari Lalita. Wireless messages, hue and cry notices, photographs were telecasted on Doordarshan. Seven police teams were despatched to Bihar to carry out raids at the residence of Prabhu in Bihar. Proceedings for declaring him a proclaimed offender were also initiated. Despite monitoring and efforts by police, the run away couple could not be traced and Prabhu apprehended.

( 5 ) ON 9th September, 2004, Kumari Lalita appeared in court of her own. Kumari Lalita stated that she had solemnized marriage with Prabhu of her own accord in a temple at Delhi on 26th April, 2003. They cohabited together. She stayed at different places in Bihar with her in laws. She stated that she was neither forced nor taken away. She had married Prabhu of her own choice. An interim direction that Prabhu be not arrested was issued. Their marriage had been performed in a temple. She claimed to be 19 years old. She gave birth to a male child on 18th March,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document