Allowed

Diksha Devi @ Priya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC7 Mar 2018HABC/54507/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of the petitioner, who had been confined in Nari Niketan. Relying on case law regarding the rights of young women to decide their own matrimonial future, the court quashed the confinement and ordered the petitioner's release to join her alleged husband.

What did the court decide?

The corpus-petitioner is set at liberty to go according to her own wishes.

Diksha Devi @ Priya Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 54507 of 2017 Petitioner :- Diksha Devi @ Priya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Tondon,Anant Ram Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Ashutosh Kumar Pandey,Rajesh Kumar Shukla,Ratnesh Kumar Shukla

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri Ankur Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶4

This petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer to direct the respondents to produce the corpus-petitioner before this Court and thereafter be pleased to set the petitioner at liberty to go as per her own wishes.

¶5

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the school first attended certificate, the petitioner is aged about 18 years. As per her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she voluntarily eloped with Rahul, hence the order passed by the learned Magistrate to keep the corpus-petitioner in Nari Niketan is bad in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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 . Moreover, the parents of the corpuspetitioner has disowned her and do not want to keep her. He submits that even though the victim was taken to be minor by the Magistrate, she cannot be allowed to be kept in Nari Niketan 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 .

¶6

Learned AGA pointed out that the victim was confined in Nari Niketan in view of the order dated 18.9.2017 passed by the Child Welfare Committee, Allahabad, the said fact is mentioned in para no.7 of the affidavit/progress report filed by learned AGA.

¶7

In compliance of this Court's order dated 27.2.2018, the corpus-petitioner Diksha Devi @ Priya has been produced by respondent no.3 before this Court today and on a query being made, she has stated that she wants to go with her alleged husband Amar Bahadur.

¶8

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, she voluntarily gone with Amar Bahadur 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.

¶9

The corpus-petitioner Diksha Devi @ Priya shall be taken back to Nari Niketan from where she shall be set at liberty by respondent no.3 to go according to her own wishes.

¶10

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.

¶11

(Krishna Pratap Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶12

Order Date :- 7.3.2018/Gaurav

Diksha Devi @ Priya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diksha Devi @ Priya v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

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

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

Momin and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Ors.

Avinash Rajbhar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajneesh Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others