Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
AJAY RASTOGI, KAILASH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Devendra, S/o Shree Mulchand - Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur - Respondents
D.B Habeas Corpus No. 214 of 2017
Decided On : 20-12-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Manish Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. B.N Sandu, Govt. Adv.-cum-Addl. Adv. General and Mr. Pankaj Sisodia, Advocate, Mr. Nemi Chand, SHO, Police Station Kekri, Ajmer and Mrs. Pinki, FC No. 2352
The detenue's wish is of utmost importance in habeas corpus cases.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Marriage Dispute - The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as the detenue expressed her wish to go with her husband, emphasizing the importance of the detenue's wish and leaving the decision on the Missing Persons Report to the Investigating Officer.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to be the husband of the detenue Riya, stating that they were married in 2007 and had a child. The detenue went missing, and the petitioner filed a writ petition seeking her recovery.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as the detenue expressed her wish to go with her husband, and the petitioner did not want to press the petition after considering the detenue's wishes.
Issues: Marriage dispute, habeas corpus petition, detenue's wish
Ratio Decidendi: The detenue's wish is of utmost importance, and the court emphasized the importance of considering the detenue's wishes in such matters.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was dismissed as not pressed, with the court leaving the decision on the Missing Persons Report to the Investigating Officer.
1. The petitioner is claiming himself to be the husband of the detenue Riya. According to the pleadings of petition, their marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and from this wedlock a male child was born and on one fine morning, she left her matrimonial home for her personal work but did not return back on 09.10.2017 for which an MPR No. 22/2017 was registered (Annex.1) and since she was not traceable and the police authorities were also not responding to the request of the petitioner, he approached this court by filing of the writ petition.
2. Notices were issued by this court on 23.11.2017 and in compliance thereof, reply has been filed and the corpus also has been produced before the court today.
3. The case diary reveals that after the detenue was recovered, her statement was recorded before the court of SDM, Kekri u/Sec.164 Cr.P.C on 16.12.2017 but immediately thereafter she moved application dt.16.12.2017 addressed to the SHO, Police Station, Kekri where she has alleged to go with her husband, it was expected from the Investigating Officer to produce the detenue back to the concerned authority. On the application being moved, which was the only procedure prescribed by law, to be acted upon by the SHO but in the given facts & circumstances and taking assistance from his seniors, he handed over her custody to her husband, the petitioner herein.
4. The detenue is produced before the court and further submit that the petitioner is her husband and she wants to go with him without any reservation. Her brother-Harish is also present in court and he too has no objection if the detenue is willing to go with her husband.
5. We are not examining the matter on merits for the reason that the detenue's wish is of utmost importance and as regards the Missing Persons Report is concerned, although the detenue has been recovered but still it is open for the Investigating Officer to take its decision in accordance with law.
6. Counsel for the petitioner after taking note of the wishes of the detenue, which has been taken note of by us too, does not want to press the instant habeas corpus petition.
7. Consequently, the instant habeas corpus petition is dismissed as not pressed, with the observations made supra.
