Disposed

Om Parkash and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Dec 2011CRWP/2646/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the father regarding his minor daughter's unlawful custody due to inter-dminage against her wishes. The court found her confinement not wrongful as the marriage dispute was already pending before the Delhi High Court.

What did the court decide?

No further directions were called for; the present writ petition is disposed of.

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2646 of 2011

¶2

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶4

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2646 of 2011

¶5

Date of Decision: 13.12.2011

¶6

Om Parkash and Another

¶7

... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and Others

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.

¶12

Present: Mr. H.P.S. Bhinder, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

Mr. Anupam Sharma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 5.

¶14

Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7.

¶15

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for release of Manu, daughter of the petitioner, who is stated to be in unlawful custody of respondents No.6 and 7. It is stated that Manu was 14 years of age and being minor, she was not competent to perform marriage with respondent No.6.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from Siri Ram, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Malvia Nagar, Delhi, has submitted that Manu, daughter of the petitioner, got herself married with

¶18

Criminal Writ Petition No. 2646 of 2011

¶19

¶20

respondent No.6-Rahul alias Gollu and the marriage certificate was issued by the Registrar (under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Furthermore, it is submitted that daughter of the petitioner and respondent No.6 have approached Delhi High Court by filing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1505 of 2011 and Criminal M.A. 12693 of 2011 titled as “Rahul and Another v. State and Others”. In the petition, before the Delhi High Court, one of the petitioners has been impleaded as respondent No.4 and the protection has been sought as the marriage has been performed against the wishes of present petitioners. It is further stated that the writ petition filed by respondent No.6-Rahul alias Gollu and Manu, daughter of the petitioners, is listed for hearing before the Delhi High Court on 16.12.2011.

¶21

In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the State, it cannot be said that daughter of the petitioner has been wrongfully confined. The matter is subjudiced before the Delhi High Court. Petitioner, if so advised, may appear, before the Delhi High Court, on 16.12.2011 .

¶22

In view of the above, no further directions are called for and the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge

¶24

December 13, 2011 “DK”

Om Parkash and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Parkash and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rani Vs State of Punjab

Prem Singh Vs State

Puran Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Amar Chand and Anr. Vs Raj Gupta and Ors.

Satnam Singh Vs State

Vishavnath Bharti Vs State