Back
2019 Supreme(All) 1309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ajai Lamba, Rajeev Singh, JJ.
Dipa Pal Through His Husband Ajay Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of U.P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. - Respondents
Habeas Corpus No. - 35167 of 2018
Decided On : 02-01-2019
For the Petitioner: Suman Lata,Anita Singh
The central legal point established in the judgment is the protection of individual rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, particularly in cases involving detention and confinement.
Headnote:
habeas corpus - detention of petitioner in Nari Niketan - Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to be released from Nari Niketan and to quash the order confining her in the facility. The petitioner claimed to be married of her own free will and wanted to live with her husband and child.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was married of her own free will, had a child, and did not want to live with her parents. The court also noted that the conditions in Nari Niketan were not ideal for housing young girls with children.
Issues: The issues involved the detention of the petitioner in Nari Niketan, the validity of the marriage, and the violation of the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and directing the release of the petitioner from Nari Niketan. The court also quashed the order confining the petitioner, citing violations of her rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, directed the release of the petitioner from Nari Niketan, and quashed the order confining the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
Ajai Lamba, Rajeev Singh, JJ.
1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature habeas corpus directing respondent no.4 (Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow) to produce the petitioner in Court and set her at liberty.
The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 03.04.2017 vide which the petitioner has been confined in respondent no.4 facility.
2. Order dated 06.12.2018 notices the gist of the issue raised by the petitioner. The order reads as under :-
“1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent No.4 Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow to produce the petitioner before this Court and set her at liberty.
The petition also seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 3.4.2017, contained in Annexure No.3, and order dated 3.1.2018, passed by Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act/Fast Track Court, Raebareli, in Case Crime No.209/2016 under Sections 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. and Sections 3, 4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, P.S. Gurbaxganj, district Raebareli.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla.
3. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is married to the deponent Ajay Kumar. The parents of the petitioner wanted the petitioner to be married elsewhere which was not acceptable to the petitioner, therefore, she left her parental house, met Ajay Kumar, went with him and got married of her free will and accord.
It has been pleaded that the marriage alliance of the petitioner with Ajay Kumar has not been accepted by respondent No.5, father of the petitioner, therefore, in abuse of process of the law and process of the Court, Crime No.0209/2016 under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Gurbaxganj, district Raebareli was registered.
In the course of investigation of the said crime, statement of the petitioner as prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 CrPC in which she has explained that she is married to Ajay Kumar of her free will and accord.
4. Learned counsel also referred to contents of Annexure No.4 to plead that on 30.3.2017, age of the petitioner was found to be seventeen years approximately. In such circumstances, it stands demonstrated that the petitioner has already attained the age of majority.
It has been argued that in denial of right of the petitioner under Art. 21 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has been housed in Nari Niketan, Prag Narain Road, Lucknow vide the impugned orders.
5. Issue notice to serve respondent No.5, also through Station House Officer, P.S. Gurbaxganj, district Raebareli.
Respondent No.5 is directed to remain present in Court.
6. Respondent No.4 is directed to produce the petitioner in Court on the next date of listing.
Mr. Ajay Kumar, the deponent through whom the petition has been filed is also directed to remain present in Court.
7. The investigating officer of Case Crime No.209/2016 (supra) is directed to file his affidavit, detailing the evidences collected in the course of investigation.
8. List on 2.1.2019.
3. In deference to above extracted order, the petitioner has been produced in Court.
4. We have questioned the petitioner at some length. The petitioner has stated in clear terms that she is married to Ajay Kumar @ Guddu Kushwaha, the deponent, and wants to live in her matrimonial home. The petitioner has also stated that a child has been born out of the wedlock. The petitioner has stated in unequivocal terms that she does not want to go and live with her parents/father, respondent no.5.
5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the investigating agency in Court which is taken on record. In Para-5 of the affidavit it has been stated that notice was served on respondent no.5 on 21.12.2018. Evidence of service has been placed on record as Annexure – 1 with the counter affidavit.
We have taken notice of the fact that respondent
