Allowed

Khusboo Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Allahabad HC21 Feb 2018HABC/2831/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of a major girl currently confined in a Child Protection Home. Relying on precedents regarding voluntary elopement, the bench held that since the petitioner wanted to leave with her husband, the confinement order was set aside and she was set at liberty to follow her own wishes.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside, the petitioner is set at liberty to go according to her own wishes, and she is allowed to proceed with her husband.

Khusboo Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 2831 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Khusboo Yadav And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bibhuti Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Krishna Pratap Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Bibhuti Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to direct the respondent no. 4 to produce the corpus-petitioner no.1 before this Court and release her after recording the statement for going anywhere according to her wishes.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim as per the academic record is a major girl, and the petitioner no.2 against whom an FIR has been lodged and his arrest has been stayed vide order dated 24.01.2018 of this Court (Annexure No.6 to the petition). The victim girl was confined in Nari Niketan, who stated in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that she had voluntary eloped with petitioner no.2 and she was produced by the police, and she has been sent to the Nari Niketan. She also deposed that she does not wish to go with her parents. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contention has placed reliance on the judgment passed in the case of S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (1965 AIR 942, 1965 SCR (1) 243 . He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the court concerned, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Child Protection Home, Moradabad/Nari Niketan, Moradabad against her wishes. In support of his arguments, he has further placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi vs. State of U.P. reported in 1992 All. Crl. Cases 323 and Smt. Renu Maurya and another vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2014 (86) ACC 128.

¶8

In compliance of this Court's order dated 06.02.2018, the corpus-petitioner no.1, Smt Khusboo Yadav has been produced by respondent no. 4 before this Court today and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her husband Vishnu Yadav (petitioner no.2).

¶9

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that as per the statement of the corpus-petitioner no.1, she voluntarily gone with Vishnu Yadav and in view of the law laid by the Apex Court as well as this Court in the case of Smt. Parvati Devi (Supra), Smt. Renu Maurya (Supra) and S. Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras (Supra), the corpus-petitioner is set at liberty to go in accordance with her own wishes. The impugned order dated 09.01.2018 passed by court below sending the corpuspetitioner in Child Protection Home, Moradabad/Nari Niketan is hereby set aside.

¶10

The respondent no. 4 is directed to set at liberty the corpuspetitioner no.1 Smt Khusboo Yadav to go according to her own wishes.

¶11

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed .

¶12

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 21.2.2018 S. Thakur

Khusboo Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khusboo Yadav and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nahima Alias Naeema and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kriti Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhupendra and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Arif through His Brother Mohammad Adil Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sheelam Alias Rehana and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Ors.

Sunny @ Sanni Chauhan and 4 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others