Disposed

Hari Singh v. State of N C T of Delhi Ors.

Delhi HC4 Mar 2024W.P.(CRL)/715/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas corpus petition by a father alleging his married adult daughter had gone missing after leaving a beauty parlour. The daughter appeared before the court and stated she had married respondent No.5 of her own free will and wished to stay with him. The petition was disposed of with directions that no hindrance be created to the marriage and safe passage be ensured.

What the court decided

AI extract

Hari Singh Vs State of N C T of Delhi Ors. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~27

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 4^th March, 2024

¶4

- W.P.(CRL) 715/2024

¶5

HARI SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Ms. Niyati Sharma, Mr. Saurabh K. Kaushik and Mr. Himanshu Chauhan, Advocates in person with his wife

¶7

versus

¶8

STATE OF N C T OF DELHI ORS .... Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Advocates, Insp. Kishore Kumar and SI Rishikant Mishra Respondent No.5 in person

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

¶11

J U D G M E N T (oral)

¶12

CRL.M.A.6687/2024 (exemption)

¶13

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

Application stands disposed of.

¶15

W.P.(CRL) 715/2024

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the form of Habeas

¶17

W.P.(Crl) 715/2024 Signature Not Verified

¶18

Page 1 of 4

¶19

Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.03.2024 11:56

¶20

Corpus seeking directions to the respondent to produce petitioner’s daughter.

¶21

The brief facts of the present case are that on 08.07.2022, petitioner’s daughter married to respondent No.5. On 02.02.2023, the respondent No.5 took his wife to their matrimonial house.

¶22

On 09.03.2023, the daughter of the petitioner filed a complaint in CAW Cell against respondent No.5 and his family members. Thereafter, respondent No.5 with the help of two females tried to abduct his daughter for which, a complaint dated 17.03.2023 was made to Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi. It is averred in the present petition that the daughter of the petitioner also filed a case under the provisions of PWDV Act being Ct. Case/0000714/2023 dated 01.04.2023 against respondent No.5 before learned MM, Patiala House Court, Delhi. It is further averred that on 13.01.2024 around 12:45 PM, the daughter of the petitioner went to a beauty parlour in Mahipalpur Market and since, then she has been missing.

¶23

The petitioner made complaint on 03.02.2024 to SHO, Police Station Vasant Kunj North, Delhi and complaint dated 08.02.2024 to DCP Vasant Kunj North, Delhi, however, no action has been taken. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

¶24

On the last date of hearing, i.e. 01.03.2024, the daughter of petitioner along with her husband, i.e. respondent No.5, appeared before this Court through video conferencing and assured this Court that they shall appear physically before this Court on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, SHO concerned was directed to send police officials to escort petitioner’s daughter and her husband to enable them to appear before this

¶25

W.P.(Crl) 715/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.03.2024 11:56

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

Court.

¶28

Today, the daughter of the petitioner and respondent No.5-husband have appeared. This Court interacted with the petitioner, his wife, his daughter and respondent No.5 in chamber.

¶29

The daughter of the petitioner submits that she got married to respondent No.5 on 08.07.2022 with her own free will and without any pressure before the Shadi Mubarak Vivah Mandal Trust, Model Town, Rohtak according to Hindu rites and customs. She further submits that she wishes to stay with her husband and the mother of her husband has already accepted her, though her own parents are not accepting their marriage as it was against their will. She also submits that she has apprehension that her parents may cause harm to them.

¶30

Petitioner and his wife, whereas, submit that they have apprehension that the respondent No.5 has influenced their daughter through jadu/tona. The daughter of petitioner had denied and submits that such marriage is as per her own choice and will and that respondent No.5 has not influenced or pressurized her in any manner. The daughter of the petitioner also submits that she would withdraw the Ct. Case/0000714/2023 dated 01.04.2023 filed by her against respondent No.5 which is presently pending before learned MM, Patiala House Court, Delhi.

¶31

Since the daughter of petitioner, aged 23 years, is an adult and has married respondent No.5 with her own will and staying with him happily, therefore, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition. 12. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of.

¶32

We, however, also direct that the petitioner and his wife shall not, in any manner, create any hindrance in the married life of their daughter.

¶33

W.P.(Crl) 715/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.03.2024 11:56

¶34

Page 3 of 4

¶35

Respondent-State is also directed to ensure that the daughter of the petitioner and respondent No.5 reach their native place safely.

¶36

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

(MANOJ JAIN)

¶39

JUDGE MARCH 4, 2024/rk

¶40

W.P.(Crl) 715/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ROHIT KUMAR Signing Da te:0 5.03.2024 11:56

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Hari Singh v. State of N C T of Delhi Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Hari Singh v. State of N C T of Delhi Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Kumar Vs the State Govt, of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Shahanshah Miyan Vs State ( Govt NCT of Delhi) and Ors.

Vikas Yadav Vs the State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Charanjit Singh Bindra Vs Foreigner Regional Registration Officer (Frro)

Raja Ram Vs Delhi Police

Rohit & Anr. Vs State

Mr. Vijay Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mohd. Aarzoo Vs State Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Suraj Kumar Vs the State Govt, of NCT Delhi & Ors.

Sachin Kumar Tiwari Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Parveen Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Parul Gaur Vs Union of India & Ors.

Usha Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Raja Ram Vs Delhi Police