Dismissed

Nanu Ram Lohar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC28 Oct 2021HC/264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as it found no illegal detention. The daughter, born in 2003, is a major and appeared before the Court stating she went with the respondent of her own free will after solemnizing marriage and wished to live with him.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the petition as having no merit; directed police to facilitate the return of parties to place of their choice.

Nanu Ram Lohar Vs State of Rajasthan — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 264/2021

¶3

Nanu Ram Lohar S/o Uday Shankar, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Tehsil Asind, Parapura, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara.

¶8

The Sho, Police Station, Badnor, District Bhilwara.

¶9

Naresh S/o Daya Bhai Patel, Resident Of Uma Society, 1047, Mtal Road, Morbi, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaikishan Haniya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, GA cum AAG Mr. Samarpit Gupta Mr. Vinod Kumar, SHO, P.S. Badnor, District Bhilwara Ms. Panchu, Female Constable 2268 Ms. Indra, Female Constable 905

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶13

Order

¶14

28/10/2021

¶15

This habeas corpus petition is filed by the petitioner alleging that his daughter is missing since 25.06.2021 and in relation to that, a Missing Person Report No.18/2021 was lodged by him at Police Station Badnor, District Bhilwara, but the police are not making any efforts to trace out his daughter. It is further alleged that the petitioner’s daughter has been abducted by the respondent No.4 and she is under his illegal detention.

¶16

(2 of 3) [HC-264/2021]

¶17

Pursuant to the notices issued by this Court on 18.9.2021, Mr. Samarpit Gupta, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent No.4 on 22.10.2021 and has made a statement that the respondent No.4 has solemnized marriage with the daughter of the petitioner and he is prepared to produce the corpus before this Court if police protection is provided. On that date, the Government Advocate has assured this Court that police protection shall be provided to the respondent No.4 and daughter of the petitioner.

¶18

Today, petitioner’s daughter has appeared before this Court and we have ascertained her wish in camera . The corpus has stated that she went with the respondent No.4 on her own free will and also solemnized marriage with him on 25.06.2021. As per the school record of the corpus, her date of birth is 20.03.2003, as such, she is major as on date. The police has also recorded statement of the petitioner’s daughter in relation to the MPR No.18/2021, wherein also she has stated that she went with the respondent No.4 on her own free will and solemnized marriage with him on 25.06.2021. She has further stated that she wants to live with the respondent No.4 only.

¶19

At the request of the petitioner and his wife, we have asked the corpus as to whether she is willing to meet her parents for some time, but she has refused for the same. As the daughter of the petitioner is major and is living with the respondent No.4 as per her own free will and is not under illegal detention of any person, we do not find any merit in this habeas corpus petition.

¶20

Hence, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

[HC-264/2021]

¶23

The police is directed to facilitate the return of the respondent No.4 and the daughter of the petitioner to the place of their choice.

¶24

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶25

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶26

24-AnilKC/-

Nanu Ram Lohar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nanu Ram Lohar v. State of Rajasthan

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

District Opium Officer Vs Suresh Kumar Jeengar

State of Rajasthan Vs Damor Manjula Ben

Kesar Singh Vs State

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (Riico) Vs Mohd. Arif Dyeing Co.

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (Riico), Vs M/S. Mukesh Mahaveer Pedding

Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited (Riico) Vs Kohinoor Dyeing