Disposed

Inderpal Mohindersingh Walia v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Sept 2010WP/977/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking directions to produce and hand over the petitioner's wife. The Court refused to order custody handover, as the marriage was void under the Hindu Marriage Act due to consanguinity. It observed the wife is major and may consult parents before deciding.

What did the court decide?

Court declined to direct handover of custody as the marriage is legally void; dismissed petition.

Inderpal Mohindersingh Walia Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

1 W.P. NO.977/10

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.977 OF 2010

¶5

Inderpal Mohindersingh Walia

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Bhavesh Parmar i/b. Vinod Shroff & Sandhya Mailagir for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. A.S. Gadkari, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State.

¶12

Mr. P.N. Mishra for respondent Nos.5 & 6.

¶13

CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR AND U.D.SALVI, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondent-State as well as private respondent Nos.5 & 6. By this petition, it is prayed that the respondents be directed to produce Harmandeep Kaur before this Court and hand over to the petitioner. It is further prayed that directions be issued to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and 8 to protect the life and property of the

¶17

2 W.P. NO.977/10

¶18

petitioner and that of Harmandeep Kaur. In so far as the principal prayer is concerned, in our opinion, the same is worked out considering the fact that Harmandeep Kaur has been produced before the Court. She is presently residing with her parents respondent Nos. 5 & 6 at Amritsar, Punjab.

¶19

Counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that the Court should issue further direction to the respondents to hand over the custody of Harmandeep Kaur to the petitioner. In the facts of the present case, we do not think it proper to consider this prayer. That is so, because, it is the case of the petitioner that he has entered into marriage with Harmandeep Kaur on 21^st January, 2009 knowing fully well that the said Harmandeep Kaur is his first cousin. In view of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage between the petitioner and Harmandeep Kaur Kuldeep Singh cannot be treated as valid. It is void on account of clause (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. If the request of the petitioner was to be considered, it would be putting seal of approval of the Court on the arrangement arrived at between the petitioner and the said Harmandeep Kaur. At the same time, we may observe that said Harmandeep Kaur is admittedly major. She is free to take her own decision, if she so

¶20

3 W.P. NO.977/10

¶21

desires. That decision could be in consultation with her parents and relatives. We express no opinion with regard to that. In our

¶22

opinion, no further order is warranted in this petition. Petition is

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

(U.D.SALVI, J.)

¶25

(A.M. KHANWILKAR,J.)

Inderpal Mohindersingh Walia v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderpal Mohindersingh Walia 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aasim Kamarali Khan @ Ayya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shridhar Krishna Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Irfana Mehmood Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mahadev Bhikoba Deshmukh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhimrao Shadu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gulam Nabi Jalil Ahmad Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra