Petitioner filed writ of habeas corpus seeking direction to State to produce his daughter who he alleged was abducted. Daughter was produced in court stating she married voluntarily and wishes to reside with husband. Petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
$~40.
RAM SAJILA YADAV
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.S. Vasisht, Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS
..... Respondent Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel and Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for the State.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
%
O R D E R 02.05.2017
Issue notice. Mr. Mehra accepts notice on behalf of the State. Respondent no.4 is also present. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of habeas corpus to seek a direction to the State to produce his daughter Sunita. The petitioner states that respondent no.4 has abducted his daughter Sunita, who is 20 years of age.
Sunita is present in court with respondent no.4. We have interacted with Sunita in chamber and she states that she has married respondent no.4 out of her own free will and that she wishes to reside with respondent no.4.
In view of the aforesaid position, since Sunita has been produced, this petition has become infructuous.
Dismissed as infructuous.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
MAY 02, 2017 sr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant direction to State to produce daughter under habeas corpus after she is produced and states free will.
Whether habeas corpus petition remains maintainable when daughter is produced in court stating she married voluntarily.
RAM SAJILA YADAV
STATE
SUNITA
RESPONDENT NO. 4
VIPIN SANGHI
DEEPA SHARMA
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
