The court prioritized the respondent's express desire to stay with the petitioner in a marriage dispute, leading to the dismissal of the divorce petition and the allowance of the restitution of conjugal rights application.

D.N. PATEL, J.

1. In pursuance of our order dated 9th April, 2014, respondent no. 9 is present. The Habeas Corpus has been filed for production of respondent no. 9 and it is alleged by the petitioner that respondent no. 8 has unauthorizedly detained respondent no. 9. Respondent no. 9 and the petitioner are married, as per allegation of the petitioner.

2. Therefore, we have called respondent no. 9 in the Court to ask her desire. The matter is taken up in the Chambers.

3. Upon our asking, respondent no. 9 stated:-

That her date of birth is 27th September, 1990 and that she is studying in the final year of Master of Commerce Degree Examination, in Nilambar Pitambar University. She further stated that she has come from the custody of her maternal uncle, Sanjay Trivedi, who is a para teacher in the district of Palamau. She further stated that she has married with the petitioner on 10th June, 2012 in the temple of Arya Samaj Temple, situated at Daltonganj, District Palamau. She further stated that the petitioner is an Assistant Professor at D.A.V. Engineering College at Daltonganj and is also an engineer.

4. When we raised a query that whether she wants to go with the petitioner or with respondent no. 8 or with her maternal uncle or with any one else or she wants to stay alone, respondent no. 9 (Amrita Kumari) has stated that she wants to stay with the petitioner. She has categorically stated that she has married with the petitioner. The petitioner is the Assistant Professor in the Engineering College and only because of caste difference, parents of Amrita Kumari have some objection or hesitation. She has reiterated that she has all desire to go with the petitioner. She has also stated that her father is a Head Clerk in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at the Garhwa district and, therefore, she has slight apprehension that untoward incident may take place. She is fully matured as per our assessment. She has given all answers firmly. She is not under influence of any one and she is ready and willing to go with the petitioner.

5. After the aforesaid statement is recorded, counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent nos. 8 and 9 are called in the Chambers. Parents of respondent no. 9 (Amrita Kumari) are also present. Respondent no. 9 has also stated in presence of her mother to go with the petitioner. It is submitted that divorce application has also been preferred in the Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj bearing no. Matrimonial Case No. 88 of 2013. This application has been preferred under the pressure of respondent no. 8, as stated by respondent no. 9. We, therefore, dismiss the Matrimonial Case No. 88 of 2013 because respondent no. 9 girl has categorically stated that there is no desire of respondent no. 9 for getting divorce, on the contrary, she wants to go with the petitioner and she will be happy with the petitioner. The petitioner says his total salaried income is approximately Rs. 67,000/- per month. Similarly, restitution of conjugal rights application has also been preferred by the petitioner before the same Family Court bearing Matrimonial Case No. 72 of 2013. It is absolutely unnecessary litigation in the Family Court, looking to the desire of respondent no. 9 and readiness of petitioner to keep respondent no. 9 with him. Hence, we hereby dispose of both the matters (Matrimonial Case No. 88 of 2013 and Matrimonial Case No. 72 of 2013) pending before the Family Court, Palamau at Daltonganj. Divorce petition filed by respondent no. 9 is, hereby, dismissed, whereas the application preferred by the petitioner is, hereby, allowed. Necessary record will be made in the disposal register by the Family Court Judge.

6. We, hereby, permit respondent no. 9 to go with the petitioner.

7. We direct respondent no. 8 and his family members not to harass the petitioner and respondent no. 9.

8. We also direct the learned Standing Counsel No. II to give proper police protection to respondent no. 9 as well as t