Advocates:
['SATYAWAN YADAV', '', 'RANJEET YADAV', 'Sri Anand Kumar Srivastava', 'G A', '', 'rajeev lochan shukla a c', 'ASHUTOSH YADAV', 'SUDHANSHU KUMAR']

RESERVED

A.F.R.

Court No. - 74

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 451 of 2020

Petitioner :- Manish Kumar And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Yadav,Ranjeet Yadav,Sri Anand

Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Yadav,Sudhanshu Kumar,

Rajeev Lochan Shukla A.C.

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

The facts giving rise to this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition are rather

unconventional and not commonplace; or so it seems.

2.

Manish Kumar is a youth, aged about 16 years and a half. He has

married Jyoti, as he says, of his freewill. Jyoti is a major and an adult in

the cognizance of law, just above the age of 18 years. Pramila Devi is

Jyoti’s mother and Manish Kumar’s mother-in-law. Arjun and Bheem are

Jyoti’s brothers and Pramila Devi’s sons. Manish Kumar, after his

marriage to Jyoti, was staying with his wife, his mother-in-law and his

two brothers-in-law, Arjun and Bheem. Haushila Devi is Manish Kumar’s

mother. She appears to have thought that Jyoti, her mother Pramila Devi

and her brothers, Arjun and Bheem have enticed away her minor son and

forced him into a marriage of sorts, which is illegal for want of the

minor’s competence under the law. She has gone on to say that Manish

Kumar, her minor son, is illegally detained by Pramila Devi, Arjun,

Bheem and Jyoti, arrayed as respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in that order. In

keeping with her thought and word, Haushila Devi has effectively

instituted the present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, arraying Manish

Kumar as the first petitioner and herself as the second, asking this Court

to order Manish Kumar, her minor son, to be produced on a Rule Nisi

2

before this Court and upon production, set at liberty in the manner that

Manish Kumar be entrusted to her care and custody.

3.

Upon the petition coming up before this Court on 18.09.2020, it

was admitted to hearing, and a Rule Nisi was issued, ordering the

production of Manish Kumar, said to be in the illegal confinement of

respondent nos. 5 to 8. The Rule was made returnable on 23.09.2020. On

the date of return, Manish Kumar was produced before this Court, and

what he said before us about the nature and character of his association

with respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 spares no doubt that Manish Kumar

was never under any kind of coercion to stay with Jyoti or the other

respondents, who are claimed to be illegally detaining him. He also does

not appear to have been enticed away. This conclusion on facts can best

be fathomed by what he stated before the Court in answer to questions

that were put to him. His stand recorded in the Court’s order on

23.09.2020 is extracted below:

Q.1. Aapka naam kya hai?

Ans. Manish Kumar

Q.2. Aapke pitaji ka kya naam hai?

Ans. Paras Nath

Q.3. Aapki aayu kya hai?

Ans. 16 Saal

Q.4. Aap kaha se aaye hain?

Ans. Chauki Narshinghpur

Q.5. Aap waha kiske pas rahte hain?

Ans. Apni Sas ke pas

Q.6. Aapki sas ka kya naam hai?

Ans. Pramila

Q.7. Jyoti kaun hai?

Ans. Hamari Aurat

Q.8. Aap apni marji se rahte hain Pramila aur Jyoti ke pas?

Ans. Ji Sir

Q.9. Haushila Devi kaun hai?

Ans. Hamari maa hai

Q.10. Aap apni maa ke pas jana chahte hain?

3

Ans. Nahi

Q.11. Kaha jana chahte hain?

Ans. Sas aur Aurat ke pas

4.

Upon the Court asking Mr. Anand Kumar Srivastava, learned

Counsel for the petitioners, about Haushila Devi’s stand in the matter, he

insisted that Manish was a minor and did not have the legal competence to

marry Jyoti. He said that their marriage is void, in view of the provisions

of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955¹ and The Prohibition of Child Marriage

Act, 2006². It was contended by Mr. Srivastava that Manish being a

minor, cannot exercise his choice to stay with strangers like respondent

nos. 5 and 8, and that Haushila Devi, being his mother and natural

guardian, is entitled to ask this Court, in the interest of the minor’s

welfare, to restore him to her custody.

5.

In view of the st