Petitioner sought habeas corpus to produce his wife alleging she was confined by her parents due to a prohibited caste marriage. Court found wife voluntarily returned with parents and was not abducted, dismissing the petition.
Petitioner not entitled to issuance of writ of habeas corpus.
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.
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RAVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Varun Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for State.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
%
O R D E R 13.02.2018
W. P (Crl) 456 of 2018
Page 1 of 2
although she got married to the Petitioner on 6th January 2018, she realized thereafter that the Petitioner was the real brother of her bhabhi (sister-in-law) and such a marriage is not permissible according to the caste to which she belongs. According to Madhuri, on 6th January 2018, she called her family following which her mother and brother came to Meerut to take her back. She informed the SHO that she went back with her parents and brother of her own free will and she has not been abducted by them or anyone else forcibly. Since then she has been residing with her family and has not been confined illegally by them.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2018 ‘ dc’
W. P (Crl) 456 of 2018
Page 2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether there is a case made out for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to produce the petitioner's wife on the allegation of illegal confinement.
RAVI
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
S. MURALIDHAR
I.S. MEHTA
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
