Dismissed

Ram Sewak v. the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC15 Dec 2017W.P.(CRL)/2954/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by a husband seeking production of his wife, who was over 18 but ossified to be 17-18. After the girl categorically stated she wished to live with her parents under chamber interaction, the Court found no duress and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

no further directions were issued; the petition was disposed of.

Ram Sewak Vs the State NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

1 + W.P.(CRL) 2954/2017

¶4

RAM SEWAK ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Jogender Dhir and Mr Naman Gupta, Advocates with Petitioner in person

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for State with SI Vijay Kumar and ASI Arvind Kumar PS Burari, Delhi

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA

¶9

O R D E R % 15.12.2017

¶10

1.This is a writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 State to produce Ms. Poonam. The Petitioner claims that he and Ms. Poonam got married on 3^rd September, 2017 at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Bareilly, U.P. and were thereafter were residing at Gurgaon.

¶11

A criminal complaint was filed by Ms. Poonam's father (Respondent No.3) at Police Station („PS‟) Burari, Delhi against the Petitioner under Section 363 IPC which lead to registration of an FIR No. 478/2017. Respondent No.3 alleged that Ms. Poonam had been forcibly abducted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner states that on 7^th September, 2017, he was

¶12

W.P.(CRL) 2954/2017 Page 1 of 4

¶13

asked to produce Ms. Poonam at PS Burari, Delhi on 7^th September, 2017. From there Ms. Poonam was taken by the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 to their house. Apprehending that Ms. Poonam may be eliminated by her family members, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

¶14

3.When this petition came up for hearing first on 24^th October, 2017, a status report was filed by the State in which it was stated that as per her Voter Identity Card, Ms. Poonam was 18 years old as on 1^st January, 2016. Her statement was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr PC. Her marriage certificate showed that she had been married to the Petitioner at the Arya Samaj Mandir, Bareilly, U.P on 3^rd September, 2017. In her statement under Section 164 Cr PC recorded on 7^th September 2017, Ms. Poonam stated that she wanted to live with the Petitioner. On 8^th September 2017, when she was produced before the Child Welfare Committee („CWC‟) at Kingsway Camp, Delhi, she was restored to her parents. Her ossification test done on 13^th September, 2017 showed her age to be between 17 and 18 years. The status report stated that the Petitioner had not joined investigation.

¶15

The Court on 24^th October, 2017 directed the State to produce Ms. Poonam before the Court on the next date i.e. 27^th October, 2017.

¶16

On 27^th October, 2017, Ms. Poonam was produced. She was asked whether she wished to live with the Petitioner, as stated by her earlier. However, she instructed the learned counsel for the State that she wished to live with her parents. She was now categorical that she did not want to live

¶17

W.P.(CRL) 2954/2017 Page 2 of 4

¶18

with the Petitioner. The relevant portion of the order of that date reads as under:

¶19

“3. Today, Ms. Poonam has instructed to the counsel for the State to convey to the Court that she wishes to live with her parents. She is categorical that she does not want to join the Petitioner.

¶20

The case of the Petitioner, however, is that Ms Poonam is being detained by her parents against her wishes and under their threat and pressure, she is expressing her unwillingness to join the Petitioner.

¶21

From her demeanour in the Court, and the statement made by her through Counsel, it does not appear to the Court that Ms Poonam is under threat or influence in making the statement that she does not wish to live with the Petitioner.

¶22

The parents of Ms Poonam are present in the Court and identified by Inspector Narender Kumar, SHO PS Burari. Mr Rahul Mehra, learned Standing Counsel has explained to the parents of Ms Poonam that they should ensure the safety and security of their daughter Ms. Poonam. The parents of Ms. Poonam have given an assurance to the Court that they will ensure her safety and security and not get her forcibly married to anyone during the pendency of present proceedings.

¶23

Given the age of Ms. Poonam and the aforesaid developments, the Court considers it appropriate to retain the matter for some more time.

¶24

List this petition on December, 2017, on which date Ms Poonam and her parents, as well as the Petitioner, will remain present in person.

¶25

Dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.”

¶26

Today again, the Court has interacted with Poonam in the chamber separately. She is very categorical that she does not wish to live with the Petitioner and that she wishes to live with her parents only. The Court is

¶27

W.P.(CRL) 2954/2017 Page 3 of 4

¶28

satisfied that she is not making the statement under any duress or coercion at this stage.

¶29

The Court separately interacted with the Petitioner as well and conveyed to him the stand of Poonam.

¶30

In that view of the matter, no further directions are required to be issued in this petition. It will be open to the Petitioner to seek other appropriate remedies that he may have in accordance with law.

¶31

The petition is disposed of.

¶32

Dasti under the signatures of Court Master to the parties.

¶33

S.MURALIDHAR, J.

¶34

I.S.MEHTA, J.

¶35

DECEMBER 15, 2017

¶36

¶37

W.P.(CRL) 2954/2017 Page 4 of 4

Ram Sewak v. the State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Sewak v. the State NCT of Delhi & 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

Vertax Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. Vs State NCT of Delhi

Sharad Kumar @ Monty Vs State

Mohd Nadim & Ors. Vs the State & Anr.

Kamla Devi Verma Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Shamshad & Ors. Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Roshni Devi Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State

Ramesh Chand Vs State

Chottey Lal Vs State

Avinash Kumar Vs State

State of NCT of Delhi Vs Puran

Roshni Devi Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Ajay Kumar Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.