Dismissed

Smt. Aneeta (Corpus) and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Aug 2018HABC/3510/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged the custody of the corpus (wife) granted to her father by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Court distinguished cited precedents, holding that since the custody order was confirmed by this Court, no violation of personal liberty existed via law-specified procedure, dismissing the petition as lacking merit.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus writ petition was dismissed with a remark of no merit.

Smt. Aneeta (Corpus) and Another Vs State… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 42

¶2

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 3510 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Aneeta (Corpus) And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Ker Singh,Hausila Prasad

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material brought on record.

¶7

This habeas corpus writ petition has been moved by the petitioner no.2-Nanhu @ Dharmendra Singh for protection of corpus-Smt. Aneeta-petitioner no.1, whom he claims to be legally wedded wife as she was wedded to him on 20.2.2018

¶8

The informant-respondent no.4 lodged first informantion report against petitioner no.2, whereupon Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.11087 of 2018 (Smt. Aneeta and 5 Others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) was moved before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court on 1.5.2018 with the direction that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till submission of chargesheet.

¶9

It has been described in the instant petition that the corpus-Smt. Aneeta has categorically stated in her statement under Section-164 Cr.P.C. that she left her parental home voluntarily and accompanied with her

¶10

husband-petitioner no.2. Even in medical examination, her age was assessed to be 19 years. When the point of custody was considered by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, respondent no.4 produced the school leaving certificate bearing date of birth of the corpus as 20.3.2003, still the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur ordered the custody of petitioner no.1-the corpus to her fatherrespondent no.4 holding her date of birth as 20.3.2003.

¶11

However, Criminal Revision No.2473 of 2018 (Nanhu @ Dharmendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and another) was preferred before this Court, which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 1.8.2018, copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.7 to the petition. Petitioner no.2 claims that he is the real guardian of petitioner no.1 being her husband. The Chief Judicial Magistrate completely ignored the application of petitioner no.2, while deciding the point of custody of petitioner no.1 and the petitioner no.1 has been kept under illegal detention since 19.7.2018.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decisions in the case of Suhani and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others in Civil Appeal No. 4532 of 2018 arising out of SLP(C) No. 8001/2018 decided on 26.04.2018 and Kiran vs. State of U.P. and others 2018 (7) ADJ 553 (DB) (LB).

¶13

Claim has been made that petitioner no.2 is the lawful custodian and guardian of corpus-petitioner no.1-Smt. Aneeta, therefore, she cannot be kept under illegal detention of respondent no.4.-her father. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed prayer and submitted that there is no breach of any fundamental right.

¶14

Vide judicial pronouncement of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, petitioner no.1-the corpus was given in the custody of the father-respondent no.4 with condition that he shall produce the corpus before the Court as and when he is so directed.

¶15

Considered the submission and also perused the record.

¶16

Obviously, in this case, the point is that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur vide its order dated 19.7.2018 passed in Case Crime No. 250 of 2018, under Sections-147, 452, 328, 363, 366, 380 I.P.C. Police Station-Sadar Bazar, DistrictShahjahanpur directed the custody of petitioner no.1 to her father (respondent no.4). This order was challenged before this Court in Criminal Revision No.2473 of 2018, which has been sustained by this Court as no illegality was perceptible in the order of the Chief Judical Magistrate.

¶17

In view of above, it is obvious that the point of custody cannot be said to be in violation of any fundamental right of petitioner no.1 or petitioner no.2. Once a legal pronouncement regarding safe custody

¶18

of the corpus has been made by the lower court and confirmed by this Court, it cannot be said that petitioner no.1 is deprived of her personal liberty, otherwise than in accordance with the procedure established by law.

¶19

In so far as the aforesaid citations are concerned, the facts of both the cases are quite distinguishable and are not attractable and are not helpful to the petitioner.

¶20

For the reasons aforesaid, this habeas corpus writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed .

¶21

No order as to cost.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.8.2018 S Rawat

Smt. Aneeta (Corpus) and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Aneeta (Corpus) and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Prem Singh Minor and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Reena Sonkar @ Reena Vishwas and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shradha Kushwaha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 04 Others

Kamla Kant Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Vinesh Pal

Kushuma and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others