Allowed

Karishma @ Kirti Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC25 Jun 2018HABC/3252/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed the habeas corpus petition of a married woman residing in Nari Niketan, directing her release within one week to live with her husband, finding she was a major who was entitled to choose her residence.

What did the court decide?

Release from Nari Niketan within one week; permission to accompany husband; fixed deposit of Rs. 25,000 in petitioner's name.

Karishma @ Kirti Gautam and Another Vs… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3252 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Karishma @ Kirti Gautam And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.

¶5

This habeas corpus has been preferred by petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2, who claims to be the husband of the petitioner no.1.

¶6

Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 29.5.2018, the petitioner no.1 has been produced before this Court. She has made a statement before the Court that she has married with petitioner no.2 and she wants to live with petitioner no.2. An agreement has also been filed as annexure-1 to the writ petition. An averment to the said effect has been made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition.

¶7

In paragraph 5, it is stated by the petitioners that they have solemnized their marriage in Shiv Temple on 20th January, 2017 and marriage contract deed has also been executed by the petitioners on the same day i.e. 20.01.2017. A copy of the said certificate dated 20.01.2017 is taken on record as annexure no.1.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 is major and she was medically examined by C.M.O. Allahabad, who has informed that her age in his opinion is about 19 years.

¶9

The petitioner no.1, who is present in the Court has also made a statement that she is major and she wants to live with the petitioner no.2.

¶10

Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel has filed memo of appearance on behalf of respondent no.5.

¶11

Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has made a statement that the Court may pass an order according to the wishes of petitioner no.1 as she is major.

¶12

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The Supreme Court in the long line of decisions have held that if a girl is a major, she can live according to her wishes and her relatives cannot put any obstruction. Reference may be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Gian Devi v. The Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Delhi and others, (1976) 3 SCC 234; Lata Singh v. State of U.P. and another, (2006) 5 SCC 475; and, Bhagwan Dass v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 6 SCC 396 . This Court also in the case of Deepika and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2013 (9) ADJ 534 has considered the law elaborately in detail. Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Suhani & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018) has passed the similar order and set aside the order of the High Court, wherein the girl was sent to Nari Niketan. The relevant part of the judgment of the Supreme Court reads as under:

¶14

"Considering the findings of physical, dental & radiological examinations we are of the considered opinion that the bone age of petitioner Miss Suhani is between 19-24 years.” In view of the conclusion arrived at by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioner no. 1 is a major, and the High Court was not correct in directing her to stay in the Nari Niketan, Allahabad. The petitioner no. 1 admits the factum of marriage, before us. Therefore, she is entitled to accompany the petitioner no. 2, who is her husband."

¶15

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that writ petition deserves to be allowed.

¶16

The respondent no. 4 is directed to release the girl from Nari Niketan at Allahabad within a week and the petitioner no.1 is permitted to go with petitioner no.2. Fixed Deposit of Rs. 25,000/- shall be entrusted in the nationalized bank in the name of the petitioner no.1.

¶17

Order Date :- 25.6.2018 Noman

Karishma @ Kirti Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karishma @ Kirti Gautam and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

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

Sumit Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anees and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others