In a writ petition where the petitioner claimed marriage to the minor girl's mother, the petitioner withdrew the petition as the marriage was being annulled and the FIR quashing was to be filed separately. The petition was disposed of as not pressed.
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.
$~16
VARUN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. P. Sureshan, Advocate.
Versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through: Mrs. Bharathi Raju, CGSC for R-1. Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for respondent no. 2 & 3. Mr. Pramod Singh and Deepak Kumar, Advocates for Ms. Nidhi and her parents. Insp. Arun Kumar Choudhary, ATO PS Jafrabad along with ASI Ram Kishore.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
Petitioner claims to have married Nidhi on 17.09.2016. Copy of the marriage certificate issued from Arya Samaj Sewa Mandal has been placed on record. Petitioner also relies on a Marriage Deed duly signed by the parties of the same date. While relying on copy of the Aadhar Card of Nidhi, which has been placed on record, petitioner claims that he was informed by Nidhi that she is 19 years of age. The grievance of the petitioner is that post the marriage, Nidhi’s parents have illegally detained her and also lodged a false report, which has resulted in registration of an FIR under Section 363 IPC.
While issuing notice, we had directed the presence of the parties. We have interacted with petitioner separately. We have also interacted with Nidhi and her parents in the presence of counsel for the petitioner and the counsel
representing Nidhi and her parents.
Nidhi submits that although she has married the petitioner, but she does not want to reside with him.
The petitioner submits that he does not want to force Nidhi into staying with him in case she has changed her mind. The petitioner, however, submits that in case he was aware that Nidhi was not a major, he would not have married her. He further submits that he was misled by the Aadhar Card produced by her.
Counsel for the petitioner as also the counsel for the respondent no. 4, father of Nidhi submit that steps have been taken to annul the marriage. The petitioner as also the counsel submits that they would participate in the proceedings and co-operate in seeking an order of annulment.
The father of Nidhi is also satisfied that Nidhi had produced the Aadhar Card before the petitioner, which led to their marriage.
We may note that on 08.09.20106, Nidhi had appeared before the court of Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and made a statement that she had not been kidnapped or enticed by anybody. Nidhi stands by the said statement.
In view of the change in circumstances, counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition and submits that he would file a petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Petition is disposed of being not pressed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
VINOD GOEL, J
DECEMBER 06, 2016 “sk”
Varun Kumar
Union of India & Ors.
G.S. Sistani
Vinod Goel
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
