Dismissed

Darshani Devi v. State of Haryana and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Dec 2020CRWP/8271/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition was filed alleging illegal custody of the petitioner's granddaughter, Meenu. The petitioner's granddaughter voluntarily stated she married the respondent and resides peacefully with him. The court found she is a major and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. The alleged detenue was free to live at a place of her choice.

Darshani Devi Vs State of Haryana and… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRM-M-8271-2020

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CRM-M-8271-2020

¶6

Date of Decision: 15.12.2020

¶7

Darshani Devi ....Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Haryana and others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

¶12

Present : Mr. Chander Shekhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana, assisted by ASI Pawan Kumar.

¶14

Through Video Conferencing

¶15

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

¶16

The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to recover detenue Meenu, who is grand daughter of the petitioner.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition was filed on the ground that the alleged detenue was in illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 to 13.

¶18

After notice of motion was issued in this case, SHO, Police Station Krishna Gate, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra was directed to visit the place as pointed out by the petitioner and to submit a report before the next date of hearing and to also ensure the security of the alleged detenue.

¶19

In response to the same, an affidavit has been filed by Mamta VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI Sodha, Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Kurukshetra, in which it is 2020.12.17 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

CRM-M-8271-2020

¶21

-2-

¶22

stated that the aforesaid alleged detenue has performed her marriage with respondent No.4, namely, Mukesh and they also got protection from the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. Now, they are peacefully residing at Safe House, Police Line, Kurukshetra. It is further stated in the affidavit that the matter was inquired and it was found that the grand daughter of the petitioner, who is the alleged detenue, performed her marriage with Mukesh and is residing with him peacefully. Along with the affidavit, statements of the alleged detenue and other statements have also been attached.

¶23

On 04.12.2020, this Court had directed that the alleged detenue, namely, Meenu be produced before this Court for direct interaction to ascertain as to whether she is being forcibly detained against her wishes by any person as alleged in the writ petition.

¶24

Today, the aforesaid alleged detenue Meenu has been produced before this Court through video conferencing. This Court, therefore, interacted with the aforesaid Meenu through video conferencing. During interaction, she has stated that she married respondent No.4-Mukesh, voluntarily and she wants to live with him. She has futher stated that she had passed 12^th Grade in the year 2018 and she is 20 years of age. So far as her age is concerned, the same is not disputed by the petitioner in the petition where the petitioner has stated in para 2 that the date of birth of Meenu is 23.10.2000. Therefore, she is more than 20 years of age and is major.

¶25

Since, the alleged detenue, namely, Meenu is a major and she has stated that she had voluntarily married respondent No.4-Mukesh and is

¶26

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2020.12.17 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-8271-2020

¶28

-3-

¶29

living peacefully with him and wants to live with him, no occasion arises for this Court to interfere in the matter. Therefore, the present petition is hereby dismissed. The alleged detenue namely Meenu shall be free to live at a place of her choice.

¶30

(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) 15.12.2020 JUDGE adhikari Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶31

VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2020.12.17 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Darshani Devi v. State of Haryana and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshani Devi v. State of Haryana and Other

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

Pardeep Kumar @ Sunny @ Pandit Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh @ Sabhi Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Suman Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others

Amit Kamboj and Another Vs State of Haryana

Jahangir Vs State of Haryana

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.