HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hari Swarup and U.C.Srivastava, JJ.
Kalyani Chaudhari
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh
Decided On : 27 December 1977
HABEAS CORPUS - PROTECTIVE HOME - DETENTION - LEGALITY - Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 - Sections 2(g), 10(2) - A person can be kept in a Protective Home only when she is being dealt with under the Act or under some other law permitting her detention in such a Home.
Fact of the Case:
A girl, Mrs. Kalyani Chowdhary, filed a petition alleging wrongful detention in Manila Ashram, Moti Nagar, Lucknow. The Superintendent of the Ashram stated that she was admitted on the basis of a Magistrate's order due to a dispute between her parents and others. The Station Officer explained that she was placed in the Ashram to prevent tension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the girl was detained in the Protective Home without any legal basis. The order of the Magistrate directing her detention lacked jurisdiction and did not specify any provision of law authorizing such detention.
Issues: Whether the girl's detention in the Protective Home was lawful.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a person can only be kept in a Protective Home if they are being dealt with under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956, or under another law permitting such detention. In this case, the girl was not being dealt with under the Act or any other law, and the Magistrate's order lacked jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the girl's immediate release.
( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed by a girl alleging herself to be Mrs. Kalyani Chowdhary. According to the petitioner she claims that she has been wrongfully detained in Manila Ashram, Moti Nagar, Lucknow. She accordingly has prayed for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus. Return was called from the Superintendent, Mahila Ashram, Moti Nagar and the Station Officer, Police Station, Saadatganj, Lucknow. They have appeared and produced the girl. According to the statement given by the Superintendent, Mahila Ashram, the petitioner had been admitted in the Ashram in the night between the 21st and the 22nd Dec. , 1977 on the basis of an order issued by the Magistrate. The Station Officer has explained that because of a dispute between the two factions concerning this girl she was produced before the Magistrate and on the basis of the orders of the Magistrate she was put in the Mahila Ashram, The girl has also appeared and made a statement. She has stated that she is not being permitted by the authorities of the Mahila Ashram to have free movement and that she is being detained against her will. According to her statement, she is married to Vinod Kumar Chowdhary and wants to live with him.
( 2 ) THE question for determination is whether her detention in Mahila Ashram which is a Protective Home, is in accordance with law. The documents produced and the statements made before us show that the Station Officer apprehended that there was likelihood of tension growing between the parents of the girl and some others. On the basis of this apprehension he made a report to the Magistrate and the learned Additional City Magistrate directed that the girl be kept in the Protective Home, Moti Nagar, It is on the basis of this order that she has been kept in the protective home.
( 3 ) PROTECTIVE Homes find a mention In the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956. "protective home" has been defined under Section 2 (g) as meaning:
an institution, by whatever name called, in which women and girls may be kept in pursuance of this Act and includes- (i) a shelter where female under-trials may be kept in pursuance of this Act; and (ii) a corrective institution in which women and girls rescued and detained under this Act may be imparted such training and instruction and subjected to such disciplinary and moral influences as are likely to conduce to their reformation and the prevention of offences under this Act.
Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act provides that where a woman or girl is convicted of any offence under Section 7 or Section 8, she may be kept in the protective homes.
( 4 ) A reading of the provision of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act clearly shows that a person can be kept in a Protective Home only when she is being dealt with under the Act. No person can be kept in the protective home unless she is required to be kept there either in pursuance of the Suppression of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, or under some other law permitting her detention in such a Home. It is admitted that the case does not fall under this Act, no other law has been referred to.
( 5 ) THE order of the learned Magistrate gives no reason why the girl be kept in the Protective Home. His order mentions no provision of law under which he has passed such a direction. The order of the Magistrate directing the girl to be kept in the protective Home thus suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction. Her custody in the protective home cannot, therefore, be held to be a legal custody.
( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the father of the girl has urged that because, according to him, the girl was a minor she could be kept in the protective home, and if not, she should be given in custody of the father as she was not a legally married woman. The evidence of the girl shows that she is a major. Moreover, in the present case the question of minority is Irrelevant as even a minor cannot be detained against her will or a
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.