Allowed

Vivek Dinesh Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jun 2008WP/1282/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition for habeas corpus regarding the wife's alleged illegal custody by her father, the court found the wife willing to join her husband's home. Consequently, the main prayer was allowed and police protection prayer was dismissed as unnecessary, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Main prayer for direction to release petitioner's wife to join matrimonial home was allowed; prayer for police protection was dismissed as unnecessary; petition disposed of.

Vivek Dinesh Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1282 OF 2008

¶4

 Shri Vivek Dinesh Agarwal .. Petitioner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

 1. The State of Maharashtra
 (Through Ghatkopar Police
 Station, Ghatkopar(W),
 Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for petitioner.

¶8

 Mrs.S.D. Shinde, APP for State.

¶9

CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ.

¶10

 Dated: June 27, 2008.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

 1. We have heard Mr. Sabrad, the learned counsel
 for the petitioner-husband. Respondent No.2 -
 Geetanjali daughter of Ramprakash Pande is present in

¶13

 the court and we have talked to her in Chamber.

¶14

 2. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.2,

¶15

:2:

¶16

 who is his legally wedded wife, was kept in illegal
 custody by respondent no.3, the father of Geetanjali
 and, therefore, he approached this court for a writ of
 hebeas corpus. He has also filed a complaint
 registered as NCR No. 2046 of 2008 with the Ghatkopar
 Police Station on 16/6/2008. Geetanjali told us that
 her date of birth is 4/11/1984 and the petitioner is
 born on 14/3/1985. Thus both of them are major.
 Geetanjali also told us that she was introduced to the
 petitioner while chitchatting on the internet and she
 fell in love with the petitioner and ultimately by her
 own choice she married the petitioner on 2/6/2008 at
 Delhi. She also confirmed that the Marriage
 Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage
 Mandal is genuine and the copies of the photographs of
 marriage annexed to the petition have also been
 confirmed by her as photographs of the wedding of the
 petitioner with her. She confessed before us that she
 managed to escape from the custody of her father from
 his house in Delhi so as to remain present before this
 court today and she is keen to join her matrimonial
 home.

¶17

:3:

¶18

 3. The petitioner along with his father Shri
 Dinesh Agarwal also appeared before us and we have
 talked to both of them in the Chamber. Mr.Dinesh
 Agarwal expressed his keen desire that Geetanjali
 returns to her matrimonial home and she will be
 received with respect as the daughter-in-law. The
 marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.2
 has been accepted by Shri Dinesh Agarwal and all his
 family members.

¶19

 4. In these obtaining circumstances, the main
 prayer, being prayer clause (b), does not survive any
 further. So far as the prayer for direction to grant
 police protection to the petitioner and his family
 members is concerned, the petitioner, his father and
 respondent no.2 fairly agreed that no such direction
 is required to be issued so long as the respondent
 no.2 joins the petitioner’s family under the orders of
 this court. It was pointed out by Mr.Sabrad, the
 learned counsel for the petitioner, that though
 Geetanjali managed to remain present before us today,

¶20

:4:

¶21

 she has not yet joined her husband’s company for the
 sole reason to avoid any adverse opinion either by her
 father or by the investigating agency.

¶22

 5. We, therefore, record that respondent no. 2 -
 Geetanjali is keen on joining her matrimonial home as
 a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the
 petition is disposed off.

¶23

(R.Y. Ganoo, J.)(B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Vivek Dinesh Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Dinesh Agarwal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Prashanta Nand Bahuguna and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjeet Bahuku Mukhiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Save Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pankaj Kantilal Bafna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alok Sudhir Sethi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.