Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, I. M. QUDDUSI
RAJ KUMARI - Appellant
Versus
SUPERINTENDENT, WOMEN PROTECTION HOUSE, MEERUT - Respondents
HAB. COR. WRIT PETN. 40363 Of 1996
Decided On : 02/17/1997
HABEAS CORPUS - CUSTODY OF MINOR - AGE DISPUTE - MEDICAL REPORTS - DETENTION IN PROTECTIVE HOME AGAINST WISHES - ILLEGAL - [SECTION 97, 98 CR. P. C.]
Fact of the Case:
A habeas corpus petition was filed on behalf of a woman, Raj Kumari, who was detained in a Government Women Protective Home. The petitioner's mother, Chandrawati, claimed that Raj Kumari was a minor and that her marriage to Sunil Kumar was void. Raj Kumari, however, stated that she was a major and that she wanted to live with her husband.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a dispute regarding Raj Kumari's age and that the medical reports indicated that she was not less than 17 years old. The court also found that Raj Kumari understood her well-being and was capable of considering her future. The court held that Raj Kumari's detention in the protective home against her wishes was illegal.
Issues: 1. Whether Raj Kumari was a minor or a major? 2. Whether Raj Kumari's detention in the protective home was legal?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that even a minor cannot be detained in a Government Protective Home against her wishes. The court relied on the following precedents: 1. Daya Chand v. Sahib Singh (AIR 1991 SC 930): The Supreme Court held that the date of birth recorded in a school certificate cannot be accepted if it is in conflict with medical evidence and the tendency of many parents to record lesser age in school is well known. 2. Smt. Pargati Devi v. State of U. P. (1982 All Cri C 32): A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the confinement of a minor female witness in a Nari Niketan against her wishes cannot be authorized under Section 97 or Section 171, Cr. P. C. 3. Smt. Kalyani Chowdhary v. State of U. P. (1977 Cri LJ 975): A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that no person can be kept in a Protective Home unless she is required to be kept there either in pursuance of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Protection Act or under some other law permitting her detention in such a home. 4. Pushpa Devi v. State of U. P. (1994 HVD (Alld) CR Vol. II page 229): A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a Magistrate cannot direct the detention of a person in a Nari Niketan simply because he does not like to go to any particular place.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order directing Raj Kumari's detention. The court directed the Superintendent of the Government Women Protective Home, Meerut to set Raj Kumari at liberty according to her wishes.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the allegations made in the writ petition, the mother of the petitioner namely Smt. Chandrawati respondent No. 4 was not willing for the marriage of the petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari with Sunil Kumar and she wanted her to marry with some other person of her choice and on getting information about the marriage of the petitioner with Sunil Kumar under the Special Marriage Act, petitioners mother had wrongfully confined her at the house of one Siria S/o Munshi residing at Peerwali Gali, Satha, District Bulandshahr.
( 3 ) THEREAFTER an application was moved by Sunil Kumar before the City Magistrate, Bulandshahr on 24-2-1996 with a prayer for issuing search warrant and for the recovery of the petitioner, alleging himself to be her husband. The City Magistrate issued search warrant for the petitioner under Section 97 Cr. P. C. But the petitioner had been shifted from the said place to her mothers place from where the police of P. S. Kotwali Nagar recovered her and produced her before the City Magistrate on 20-8-1996 and submitted a report that her medical examination could not be done on account of strike of Doctors. The City Magistrate ordered the detention of the petitioner in Government Women Protective Home, Meerut. Thereafter the petitioner was medically examined on 26-8-1996 and the Chief Medical Officer, Bulandshahr opined her age to be about 19 years. Thereafter the mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 3-10-1996 and challenging the medical report of the Chief Medical Officer with a prayer that another medical report from other district or Medical College, Meerut regarding the age of the petitioner may be obtained. Thereafter the petitioner was again medically examined at LLRM, Medical College, Meerut. According to the report of the Chief Medical Officer the age of the petitioner was 19 years on 26-8-1996 and according to the report of LLRM, Medical College, Meerut her age was indicated above 17 years and below 19 years on 10-10-1996. The petitioner herself stated her age to be 20 years in her statement given before the City Magistrate on 15-11-1996.
( 4 ) IT appears that the petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari moved an application thereafter on 31-10-1996 indicating that she is detained in Nari Niketan against her wishes, while she is a legally wedded wife of Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Autar R/o P. S. Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr and she married him on 10-7-1996 before the Marriage officer/deputy Collector, Hapur and the Deputy collector, Hapur before that marriage got the petitioner medically examined and found her to be a major one. She has also indicated in that application that her mother gave a threat to her that in case she would not make statement in her favour she would not be released from Nari Niketan. While she has already given her statement, which is correct that her age is 20 years and she wants to go with her husband Sunil Kumar.
( 5 ) THEREAFTER the statement of the petitioner Smt. Raj Kumari was recorded on 15-11-1996 by the City Magistrate in which she has reiterated the same things which were mentioned in the aforesaid application of the petitioner. She has stated in her statement that she does not want to live with her mother and she wants to live with her husband Sunil Kumar. Thereafter the City Magistrate, Bulandshahr passed a detailed order in which he has indicated that there is dispute regarding the age of Raj Kumari-petitioner and the mother of the petitioner has filed an application before the District Judge under the Guardian and Wards Act for her appointment
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
