Dismissed

Smt. Rani Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC20 Aug 2018HABC/3274/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the Court examined the status of the minor claimant. Noting the claimant's affidavit stating she willingly married and resides with the respondent, along with a lower court order allowing her freedom, the Court found no evidence of illegal detention and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Smt. Rani Devi and Another Vs State of U.P… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3274 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Rani Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Achal Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner no.2 and respondent nos.4 to 6 are taken on record.

¶6

Rejoinder affidavit filed is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State, learned counsel for contesting respondents and perused the material brought on record.

¶8

In this case, the corpus Manisha has been produced in Court by respondent nos.4, 5 and 6. She has filed her affidavit/counter affidavit wherein she has specifically claimed to the effect that she of her own free will and without any pressure has married with respondent no.4 Rahul and is residing presently with him. She claimed that her date of birth is 10.06.1999 and she is major. In support of her claim, she has placed on record copy of AADHAR card (annexure no.1) as well as the order of the S.D.M. Soraon, Allahabad. Bare perusal of the order of the S.D.M. Soraon, Allahabad dated 21.04.2018, it transpires that the corpus Manisha was allowed to go wherever she wishes to go.

¶9

In view of the aforesaid order of the S.D.M. Soraon, Allahabad dated 21.04.2018, copy whereof has been annexed as annexure no.2 to the petition, it is obvious that the corpus Manisha has been allowed by the competent authority to go wherever she wishes. Against this order, there is no other order which may indicate fact that things are otherwise.

¶10

By way of rejoinder affidavit, learned counsel for petitioners has mentioned the date of birth of the

¶11

corpus as 11.05.2002. However, he could not base his claim on any document. The date of birth of the corpus alone was mentioned as actual date of birth without any documentary support. During interaction with the corpus Manisha, she expressed her desire to reside with respondent no.4 Rahul son of Jeet Lal.

¶12

In view of above, it cannot be said that the corpus Manisha has been kept under illegal detention by respondent nos.4 to 6 against her wishes. Therefore, the instant petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.

¶13

Order Date :- 20.8.2018 rkg

Smt. Rani Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani Devi 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susheel Kumar and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Najreen Alias Guddi Vs State of U.P.

Genda Lal Vs State

Shail Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Buddhu @ Buddhu Prakash Vs State of U.P. and Another

Anand Kumar Gupta and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others