HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
A.Y. KOGJE, SAMIR J. DAVE, JJ
NARESHKUMAR BHIKHABHAI MAFABHAI MAKWANA BHANGI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 12804 of 2024
(A) No specific laws or sections cited - The court addressed the issue of the corpus's autonomy and well-being in the context of her marital status and parental relations.
(B) Key legal principles include the recognition of a major individual's right to choose their living arrangements and the importance of ascertaining the wishes of the corpus.
(C) Important facts include the corpus's declaration of mistreatment by her parents and her voluntary marriage to Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai.
(D) The main issues addressed by the court were the corpus's wishes regarding her living situation and the legality of her marriage. (E) The court found that the corpus is now a major, has voluntarily chosen her living arrangements, and is not under any illegal confinement. (F) The final decision states, "Present petition stands disposed of accordingly." (G) Parties involved: the corpus, her parents, and Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai.
ORDER :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. The matter was ordered to be adjourned to 17.01.2025, however, the corpus was traced out and therefore, learned APP urgently mentioned the matter to be taken up. Accordingly, the matter is taken up for hearing with the prior intimation to the learned advocate for the petitioner, who is present before the Court.
2. At the request of learned advocate for the parties, the matter is taken up in the chamber to ascertain the wishes of the corpus.
3. Learned APP has placed on record police report, which is ordered to be taken on record. The date of birth of the corpus is 31.07.2006 and therefore, as on today the corpus is major and hence, the Court has interacted with her in the chamber and she has declared before the Court that on account of mistreatment at the hands of her parents, she has left the house on her own willingness. Thereafter, she has entered into matrimonial relations with one Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai, residing near Kalol Railway Station, Kalol. She has treated said Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai as her legally wedded husband and has entered into marriage by following some traditional process.
4. The Court has permitted the corpus to interact with her parents in presence of respective advocates. After interaction, the wishes of the corpus were ascertained and she has reconfirmed that she does not want to go with her parents as she is happily residing with her legally wedded husband Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai and she was residing there voluntarily alongwith family members of Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai. She has stated that she was never detained or under illegal confinement of any one.
5. In view of the aforesaid declaration, no further orders are required to be passed. The corpus, who is now major and the Court having found her to be well oriented towards her well being rights and left it open upon the corpus to join company of any person of her choice. She has declared to the Court go in company of Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai, as the corpus is at her free will to do so.
6. In view of the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed. Present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
7. It is reported that the police has traced out the corpus from the residence of Raval Pradipbhai Rameshbhai, near Kalol Railway Station, Kalol, therefore, the police is directed to safely return the corpus from where, they had taken her custody.
The court affirmed the autonomy of a major individual to choose their living arrangements and marital status, emphasizing the importance of ascertaining their wishes.
The court recognized the independent decision-making capacity of the corpus, allowing her to live with the petitioner based on her expressed wishes.
The court affirmed the maturity of a 19-year-old corpus to make her own decisions regarding marriage, recognizing her free will and consent.
A writ of Habeas Corpus is not warranted when the individual is confirmed to be residing voluntarily and not under illegal confinement.
The court ruled that a minor's expressed wishes cannot override parental custody rights, necessitating protective measures until the minor reaches majority.
An adult's expressed desire to return to her spouse must be respected, affirming individual autonomy under Article 21.
The court upheld the corpus's right to personal liberty and choice in relationships, recognizing her maturity and education as factors in permitting her to live with her husband.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.