Gujarat High Court
Panchal Karneshkumar Maheshbhai vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 27 August, 2015
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, K.J.Thaker
R/SCR.A/4664/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO. 4664 of 2015
==========================================================
PANCHAL KARNESHKUMAR MAHESHBHAI....Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV A BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAJKUMAR CHAUMAL, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.J.THAKER
Date : 27/08/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH)
1. Present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner, herein, for an appropriate writ of habeas corpus, seeking custody of Respondent No.4, herein, alleging inter alia that she has been forcibly taken away by Respondent No.3. It is alleged in the petition that he has married with Respondent No.4 and that marriage is registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Deva Talpada, Taluka: Sojitra. It is alleged that marriage was solemnized on 20.07.2015 at Deva Talpada, Taluka: Sojitra.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Tue Sep 01 00:43:59 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4664/2015 ORDER Court, Shri. Rajkumar Chaumal, learned Advocate, has appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and
4. Respondent No.4, i.e. the Corpus, is present in the Court.
3. Respondent No.4, i.e. the Corpus, is major and she has specifically denied having any relation with the petitioner. The corpus has also categorically denied of having any marriage solemnized between her and the petitioner on 20.07.2015 at Deva Talpada, Taluka: Sojitra, as is alleged by the petitioner in this petition. She has also categorically stated that she wants to go, stay and reside with her parents. She has stated that she is making the above statement freely, independently and without any coercion and or pressure of anybody.
4. At this stage, Shri. Parthiv Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, under the instructions from his client, who is present in this Court in person, has stated at Bar that in view of the above and in view of the stand taken by Respondent No.4, as recorded herein above, and to put an end to the entire controversy and in the larger interest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall not / do not claim any status as husband, on the basis of the certificate issued by the Registrar of Marriage Page 2 of 4 HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Tue Sep 01 00:43:59 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4664/2015 ORDER on 20.07.2015, or even otherwise, he does not claim that Respondent No.4 is his legally wedded wife.
In view of the above categorical statement made by the petitioner, who is present in the Court in person, the certificate dated 20.07.2015, which is registered vide Sr. No.204, Volume 1, of Register of Marriages, issued by the Registrar of Marriage, Deva Talpada, Taluka:
Sojitra, in connection with the alleged marriage of the petitioner with Respondent No.4 STANDS CANCELED and it is agreed by the petitioner, who is present in this Court in person, that he shall not and does not claim, on the basis of the aforesaid certificate and or otherwise, that Respondent No.4 is his legally wedded wife. Shri. Bhatt, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has handed over, the aforesaid marriage certificate in original as well as affidavits, alleged to have been signed by Respondent No.4, the photocopies whereof are produced on the record of the present petition, to Respondent No.4, who is present in the Court in person.
6. In view of the above, it cannot be said that Respondent No.4, i.e. the corpus, is in illegal confinement of either Respondent No.3 or Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Tue Sep 01 00:43:59 IST 2015 R/SCR.A/4664/2015 ORDER of her parents. Under the circumstances, we DISMISS the present petition and PERMIT Respondent No.4, i.e. the corpus, to go, stay and reside with her parents, as per her wish and will recorded herein above. Rule is discharged.
(M.R.SHAH, J.) (K.J.THAKER, J) UMESH Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Tue Sep 01 00:43:59 IST 2015