Allowed

Shri Mahesh S/O Bhatu Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Bombay HC12 Apr 2016WP/432/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bench entertained a habeas corpus petition filed by the husband seeking production of his major wife. After an enquiry and a statement from the petitioner's sister, the court directed police to ensure the wife was safely reached at the petitioner's residence in Shahada, disposing of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing Local Crime Branch, Dhule, to ensure respondent no.8 is safely reached at petitioner's sister's residence at Shahada along with petitioner.

Shri Mahesh S/O Bhatu Patel Vs the State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Cr.WP 432/16

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.432/2016

¶6

Mahesh s/o Bhatu Patel,
age 29 yrs., occu.agri.,
r/o Sarangkheda Tq.Shahada
Dist.Nandurbar.

¶7

...Petitioner..

¶8

Versus

¶9

1] The State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶10

2] Special Inspector General of Police, Nashik Range, Dakshata Building, Old Mumbai – Agra Road, Gadkari Chowk, Nashik – 422002.

¶11

3] The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad. Dist.Aurangabad.

¶12

4] The Superintendent of Police, Nandurbar. Dist.Nandurbar.

¶13

5] The Police Inspector, Sarangkheda Police Station, Tq.Shahada Dist.Nandurbar.

¶14

6] Smt.Vidya w/o Kantilal Jain, age major, occu.business, r/o Sarangkheda Tq.Shahada Dist.Nandurbar.

¶15

- 2 -

¶16

Cr.WP 432/16

¶17

7] Sailesh s/o Kantilal Jain, age major, occu.business, r/o Sarangkheda Tq.Shahada Dist.Nandurbar.

¶18

8] Mrs.Puja w/o Mahesh Patel, @ Puja Kantilal Jain, age 23 yrs., occu.nil, r/o Sarangkheda Tq.Shahada Dist.Nandurbar. ...Respondents...

¶19

 .....

¶20

Shri Shrikrishna U. Chaudhari, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S.J. Salgare, APP for respondent nos.1 to 5.
Shri G.D. Jain (Bhansali), Advocate for respondent no.8.

¶21

 .....

¶22

CORAM: R.M. BORDE &
 K.L. WADANE, JJ.
DATE: 12.04.2016

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

1] The instant petition requesting to issue writ of habeas corpus is presented by the husband of the

¶25

respondent no.8 for ensuring her presence before this

¶26

Court. The petitioner claims that he is married with the
respondent no.8 and the marriage has been performed as

¶27

per the Hindu rituals on 23.1.2015. The petitioner

¶28

states that he belongs to Gujar community, whereas the
respondent no.8 belongs to Jain religion. As such, there

¶29

is opposition for the love marriage by the members of the

¶30

Cr.WP 432/16

¶31

- 3 -

¶32

family of the respondent no.8. It is further contended
that after performance of marriage, the couple cohabited
together with the friends and relatives of the petitioner

¶33

till 2.3.2015. However, it is alleged that on the
aforesaid date, an officer of the Police Station forcibly
took away the respondent no.8 and physically handed her
custody to the respondent nos.6 & 7 and her uncle.

¶34

2] The petitioner on earlier occasion approached this Court by presenting a petition for habeas corpus being Criminal Writ Petition No.384/2015 in the month of May, 2015. This Court directed production of the girl i.e. the respondent no.8 before this Court. The matter

¶35

was heard in the chamber and upon enquiry, the respondent no.8, who is major, had expressed her willingness to stay with her mother. In view of the statement made by the respondent no.8, the habeas corpus petition came to be disposed of.

¶36

3]The instant petition is again presented

¶37

contending therein that the respondent no.8, who is the
wife of the petitioner, is detained against her wish and

¶38

- 4 -

¶39

will by her family members including the respondent nos.6
& 7. In support of the allegations, the petitioner has
produced on record the letters allegedly written by the
girl i.e. the respondent no.8 at page no.42 onwards. The
respondent no.8 has accepted specifically that she is the
author of these letters annexed to the petition. Apart
from this, the Registry of this Court has received the
letters independently allegedly written by the respondent
no.8. The Registry has also received a Pen Drive
containing video recording of the respondent no.8. On

¶40

perusal of the letters annexed to the petition as well as
on consideration of the letters received by the Registry
directly and the video recording, we called upon the

¶41

Superintendent of Police, Dhule, to produce the
respondent no.8 before this Court. The Police
authorities have produced the respondent no.8 before us.
At 2-30 p.m., upon an enquiry, it has been disclosed by

¶42

the respondent no.8 that firstly she is the author of the
letters annexed to the petition and secondly she is the
author of the communication received by the Registry of
this Court as well as the respondent no.8 has admitted
transmission of the Pen Drive containing video recording.

¶43

Cr.WP 432/16

¶44

- 5 -

¶45

The respondent no.8 has, however, contended that she is

¶46

not being ill-treated by the members of her family. She
has admitted that she has attained majority and her age
is 22 years. She has also admitted solemnization of her
marriage with the petitioner. The respondent no.8
initially was not in a position to make her mind and as

¶47

such requested for grant of some time to think over and
inform her decision to the Court. The matter was taken
up at 5-00 p.m. in the chamber. Upon an enquiry on
second occasion, the respondent no.8 in an unequivocal

¶48

terms expressed her desire to join company of her husband
i.e. the petitioner. In presence of the learned counsel
appearing for the respective parties also, the respondent

¶49

no.8 during the course of hearing of the instant
petition, has reiterated her desire to joint the company
of the petitioner. The respondent no.8 has also extended

¶50

the request that she and her husband be reached to her

¶51

matrimonial home or at the place of sister of the
petitioner at Shahada. It is contended that the Police
authorities of Nandurbar had adopted a partisan attitude
on earlier occasion and as such the respondent no.8 has
no faith in the Police officers functioning at Nandurbar.

¶52

Cr.WP 432/16

¶53

- 6 -

¶54

Considering this statement of the petitioner, at initial
stage also, directions were issued to the Local Crime
Branch, Dhule to produce the respondent no.8 before this
Court. We deem it appropriate to direct the Police
authorities i.e. Shri N.K. Pathan, Police Sub-Inspector,
Local Crime Branch, Dhule, to ensure that the respondent
no.8 is reached safely alongwith the petitioner at the
petitioner's sister's residence at Shahada. Shri N.K.
Pathan, PSI, who is present in person in the Court has
undertaken the responsibility to abide by the directives
issued by this Court.

¶55

4]In view of the desire expressed by the

¶56

respondent no.8 in unequivocal terms that she would join the company of her husband and will cohabit with him, the purpose of presenting the instant petition for habeas corpus shall be deemed to have been served. We direct the Police authorities (Shri N.K. Pathan, PSI, LCB, Dhule) to ensure that the respondent no.8 is reached safely alongwith the petitioner at the residence of the petitioner's sister at Shahada.

¶57

Cr.WP 432/16

¶58

5]In view of the directions as above, the criminal

¶59

writ petition stands disposed of.

¶60

 (K.L. WADANE, J.) (R.M. BORDE, J.)

¶61

ndk/ cr1241613.doc

Shri Mahesh S/O Bhatu Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Mahesh S/O Bhatu Patel v. the State of Maharashtra and Other

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

Awtar Hariprasad Biswas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr Ashok Pandharinath Ghuge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Subhash Laxmanrao Bhoyar. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Yashpal S/O. Yogiraj Kambale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Santosh Mahadeo Erande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Rajabhau @ Rajendra S/O. Digambar Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others