Court dismissed petition for habeas corpus where female detenue denied illegal detention and matrimonial alliance with first petitioner. Petitioner ordered to deposit interim security of Rs. 50,000 to petitioner’s mother's account.
Petition dismissed with costs. Petitioner directed to deposit Rs. 50,000 in account of Smt. Mamta.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 66
Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 303 of 2020
Petitioner :- Mohkam @ Maukam Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Manish Kumar
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition has come up on a return of the Rule Nisi order dated 23.06.2020. The case of the petitioner is that he and the second petitioner married, according to Hindu rites, on 11.12.2019, but the fourth respondent, who is the second petitioner's mother, took away his wife forcibly and is detaining her against second petitioner's will and wish. Rule Nisi was issued on 23.06.2020, requiring the production of the detenue. The detenue has been produced before this Court by SubInspector Hem Singh (P.N.O. No. 152331029), posted at Police Station - Sector 49, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, who has identified the detenue-petitioner no. 2, Smt. Gungun, wife of Mohkam alias Maukam Yadav, daughter of Prempal, before this Court. This Court, accordingly, proceeds to ascertain the stand of Smt. Gungun in the matter, which is recorded verbatim :-
Q. Aapka naam?
A. Gungun.
Q. Aapki aayu?
A. 18 saal.
Q. Aapke pitaji ka naam?
A. Prempal.
Q. Aapne shaadi ki hai?
A. Yes Sir.
Q. Kissey?
A. Praveen Kumar Shakya se.
2
Q. Ye Mohkam alias Maukam Yadav kaun hai?
A. Ye pehle jo mujhe le gaya tha.
Q. Kya aapne Mohkam alias Maukam Yadav se shaadi ki hai?
A. No Sir, koi shaadi nahi ki hai. (Saying so, she nodded her head in refusal).
Q. Iss waqt aap kiske paas reh rahi hain?
A. Apne pati aur maa-baap ke paas.
Q. Aapko mataji se jabardasti roka?
A. Nahi.
A perusal of the aforesaid stand of the second petitioner makes it clear that she denies any matrimonial alliance with the first petitioner and says that she has not been illegally detained and restrained by respondent no. 4. She is staying with her parents and her husband, Praveen Kumar Shakya, of her free will. There is, thus, no good ground to make the Rule Nisi dated 23.06.2020, absolute. The rule is discharged and this petition, is, accordingly, dismissed .
This Court, vide order dated 23.06.2020, had ordered the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of Smt. Gungun, with the Registrar General of this Court. This order has not been complied with. Smt. Gungun, who is present before the Court, states that she does not hold a bank account and consents that the said sum of money may be directed to be deposited in her mother's account, that is to say, the account of Smt. Mamta, wife of Prempal, respondent no. 4.
The petitioner is, accordingly, ordered to deposit the sum of Rs. 50,000/- through a banking instrument, payable in account in favour of Smt. Mamta, at Gautam Buddh Nagar, within a period of two weeks next. In case, the said amount is not remitted as directed, the Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar, shall recover the same from the first petitioner, Mohkam alias Maukam Yadav, son of Ramesh Yadav, resident of Village Sarfabad,
3
Sector 73, Noida, District - Gautam Buddh Nagar, as arrears of land revenue and cause the same to be deposited in the account of Smt. Mamta
Let this order be communicated to the Collector, Gautam Buddh Nagar by the Joint Registar (Compliance) by Monday next i.e. September 7, 2020 .
Order Date :- 3.9.2020 I. Batabyal
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petition for habeas corpus should be maintained given the petitioner’s denial of illegal detention and refusal of the matrimonial alliance with the first petitioner.
Whether the petitioner should be directed to deposit the interim security amount to the appropriate account.
Mohkam @ Maukam Yadav And Another
State Of U P
Prempal
Smt. Mamta
Gungun
J.J. Munir
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
