In a habeas corpus petition, the Court examined the daughter's marriage choices. Finding she is an adult freely married and not restrained, the Court refused further direction to meet the mother and disposed of the petition.
The Court saw no reason to issue any further directions and disposed of the petition.
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
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2436/2018
SUNITA PAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Mohd. Shahzad, Advocate. versus STATE & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate for State.
Insp. Virender Kumar, AHTU/ Crime Branch
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
O R D E R % 05.09.2018
original resident of a Village Rahimpur, PS Uchaian, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan and who is at present a security guard working in a Haldiram’s outlet in Palam Vihar, Gurugram. After marriage, both she and Hari Om are living in village Fazilpur, Gurugram. Her statement under Section 164 Cr PC has also been recorded before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate where she has reiterated the above facts.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
SEPTEMBER 05, 2018 Bisht
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should issue further directions regarding the parent's apprehension that the daughter may have gone away with another person.
Whether the adult daughter is being illegally restrained against her will.
SUNITA PAL
STATE & ORS.
S. MURALIDHAR
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
