Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 4090 of
2025 ================================================================
YOGESH LAVJIBHAI SUTARIYA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.SANAT B PANDYA(6976) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR.L.B.DABHI, APP, for the Respondent(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3 RULE SERVED TO CONCERNED POLICE STATION HOWEVER, SERVICE REPORT NOT FILED BY POLICE STATION for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5 ================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Date : 27/03/2025
ORDER :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner for following reliefs:
“(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to allow this Special Criminal Application by issuing a writ of habeas corpus or a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing respondent no.2 and 3 to produce the corpus (respondent no.4) before this Honourable Court namely “HASTI YOGESHBHAI SUTARIYA” who is missing, from past three months.
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, be pleased to direct respondent no.3 to produce “HASTI YOGESHBHAI SUTARYA” respondent no.4, before this Hon’ble Court and this Hon’ble Court may think fit, deem, just and proper, custody of corpus may be trasnfered to the petitioner.”
2. In response to the rule issued by this Court under order dated 21.03.2025, corpus-Hasti Yogeshbhai Sutariya is present before the Court through respondent No.3. Learned advocate Mr.Vivek Bhamare has instructions to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5.
3. At the request of both the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing in the Chamber to ascertain the wishes of the corpus. The Court has interacted with the corpus in presence of both learned advocates for respective parties. The corpus is aged 22 years has studied upto B.Com and appears to be well confident and capable of taking her independent decision. The Court has also allowed the corpus to interact with the learned advocate for the petitioner, father of the petitioner for counseling her. After such exercise, once again the Court has interacted with corpus and she has stated that she was having an affair with respondent No.5 and both have agreed to enter into matrimonial relationship and thereby have married with each other and the marriage has been registered with the Registrar of Marriage, East Zone, Surat Municipal Corporation. Learned advocate, at this stage, places on record certificate of marriage of corpus and respondent No.5.
4. Even after the interaction with learned advocate for the petitioner, the corpus is determined to go with her husband with whom she has been residing since December 2024 as his legally wedded wife.
5. In view of the aforesaid declaration made by the corpus, no further orders are required to be passed. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
The court affirmed the right of an individual to make independent decisions regarding marriage, emphasizing the importance of personal autonomy.
An adult's expressed desire to return to her spouse must be respected, affirming individual autonomy under Article 21.
The court affirmed the right of a major individual to choose their partner and emphasized the importance of personal liberty and safety in such decisions.
A major individual has the autonomy to choose their residence and cannot be compelled against their will, affirming the principles of individual rights and legal capacity.
A writ of Habeas Corpus is not warranted when the individual is confirmed to be residing voluntarily and not under illegal confinement.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an individual, especially of the corpus's age, to make decisions regarding marriage and the emphasis on personal liberty and ....
The court upheld the autonomy of an adult individual in choosing their living arrangements, emphasizing that no illegal confinement was present.
The court reaffirmed the principle that the wishes of the individual in custody matters are significant and should be respected, particularly when it concerns family unity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
