Allowed

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018A482/42294/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court set aside the detention of the applicant's wife in a Nari Niketan. The wife, previously ordered sent to a correctional home by a Sessions Judge, was found to be 19 years old per medical report. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held she is major and at liberty to live with her husband.

What did the court decide?

The detention of the opposite party No. 4-Radha in Nari Niketan was quashed; she is at liberty to go and live according to her own wish with the applicant.

Rajendra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 12

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42294 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that opposite party no. 4, who is legally wedded wife of applicant has been illegally detained in Nari Niketan, Moradabad at the behest of respondent no. 2.

¶7

Earlier, when the matter was taken up on 30.11.2018, following order was passed;

¶8

" Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Moradabad and Radha as opposite party nos. 3 and 4 in the array of the respondents during the course of the day.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that opposite party no. 4 is her legally wedded wife and she has also given her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. that applicant is her husband. He further submits that Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Amroha has recorded her age as 17 years and 1 month and sent her to Nari Niketan. He further submits that as per medical report dated 12.6.2018 given by C.M.O., Amroha, her age is about 19 years. In support thereof, he has placed reliance of the Apex Court judgement in the matter of Suhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8901 of 2018).

¶11

I have perused the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Amroha dated 13.6.2018 as well as medical report dated 12.6.2018. As per medical report, age of opposite party no. 4 is 19 years.

¶12

In view of above, list this case on 10.12.2018 in the additional cause list.

¶13

On the next date, opposite party no. 3 is directed to produce opposite party no. 4 before this Court. Applicant is permitted to produce the certified copy of this order before opposite party no. 3 for strict compliance. "

¶14

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.11.2018, opposite party no. 3 is directed to produce the opposite party No. 4-

¶15

Radha before this court.

¶16

Today, opposite party No. 4-Radha and applicant-Rajendra are present before this Court who are identified by their counsel Sri Manoj Yadav and their presence has also been recorded in the order sheet. Opposite party No.4-Radha has stated that she is major and is legally wedded wife of the applicant and is also pregnant and wants to go with him. Statement of opposite party no. 4-Radha has been recorded in the order sheet.

¶17

I have perused the records.

¶18

In the statement of victim recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C., she has stated that out of love and affection, she got married with applicant-Rajendra and wants to live with him. In the medical certificate issued by CMO, Moradabad, her age is determined about 19 years. In the light of judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Suhani and another Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 8901 of 2018 , there is no occasion to sent the opposite party No. 4-Radha to the Nari Niketan.

¶19

In view of above, since opposite party No. 4-Radha has been found to be major as per medical report, she is at liberty to go and live according to her own wish.

¶20

Present application is allowed .

¶21

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Sartaj

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Buddhan Vs State of U.P.

Laek Beg Vs State of U.P.

Hawaldar Alias Jajjaffur and Others Vs State of U.P. and Others

Misri Lal Vs State of U.P.

Maya Devi Vs State of U.P.

Ram Kishore Vs State of U.P. and Others