Disposed

Vinod Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC24 Apr 2023HC/98/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition alleging wrongful confinement of a wife after marriage, the High Court located the respondent wife who confirmed she wanted to live with the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and the State was directed to provide security for their travel. (Note: The text says 'dismissed' but also 'free to go', indicating the wife is no longer held against her wish re

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; respondent wife free to accompany petitioner; Respondent State directed to provide security for travel of couple.

Vinod Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan — Matrimonial and Divorce | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011583]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 98/2023

¶4

Vinod Kumar S/o Kachra Ram, aged about 24 years, R/o Litriya, Tehsil Jaitaran, Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary of Home Affairs Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Pali.

¶9

The S.H.O., Police Station Jaitaran, District Pali.

¶10

Ashok Bhai S/o Unknown, R/o 62 Radha Swami Nagar, Navagam Dindoli Suratcity, Gujrat at present residing at 401, Suman Prahar Parvat, Gram Surat City, Gujrat.

¶11

Sulekha Devi W/o Ashok Bhai, R/o 62 Radha Swami Nagar, Navagam Dindoli Suratcity, Gujrat at present residing at 401, Suman Prahar Parvat, Gram Surat City, Gujrat.

¶12

Vijay Gupta S/o Shyam Sunder, R/o 62 Radha Swami Nagar, Navagam Dindoli Suratcity, Gujrat at aresent residing at 401, Suman Prahar Parvat, Gram Surat City, Gujrat.

¶13

Sanjay Gupta S/o Shyam Sunder, R/o 62 Radha Swami Nagar, Navagam Dindoli Suratcity, Gujrat at present residing at 401, Suman Prahar Parvat, Gram Surat City, Gujrat.

¶14

Guddu Gupta S/o Shyam Sunder, R/o 62 Radha Swami Nagar, Navagam Dindoli Suratcity, Gujrat at present residing at 401, Suman Prahar Parvat, Gram Surat City, Gujrat.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Karan Dhoru & Mr. KuldeepSingh.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG. Mr. Ripudaman Singh for corpus.
		Mr. Ravindra Singh, S.I./S.H.O.
		P.S.- Jaitaran,District Pali

(2 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/011583]

[HC-98/2023]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶21

Order

¶22

24/04/2023

¶23

This petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wrongful confinement of his wife, Ms. ‘P’ by the respondents No.4 to 8.

¶24

Submissions have been made that the petitioner and corpus Ms. ‘P’ entered into wedlock, which is evidenced by Certificate dated 15.06.2022 (Annex.2) and that she has been detained by respondents No.4 to 8 against her wishes.

¶25

By order dated 10.04.2023, copy of petition was ordered to be served on learned AAG, who was directed to complete his instructions/file factual report.

¶26

A factual report has been produced indicating that corpus was located at her parents’ home at Surat, wherein her statements were recorded, and she has indicated that she had married with petitioner Vinod Kumar and her parents do not want her to go back to Vinod Kumar. She was major and wants to live with Vinod Kumar and that she was not in wrongful confinement. 5. The corpus is present before the Court.

¶27

We have conferred with the corpus in camera and also in the presence of the counsel for the parties, wherein she has reiterated that after marriage with petitioner she stayed with him for three months and thereafter she went back to her parents, who are against her living with the petitioner, however, she was categoric in indicating that she wants to stay/live with the petitioner.

¶28

[2023/RJJD/011583]

¶29

[HC-98/2023]

¶30

In view of above fact situation, wherein the corpus, present before the Court, has clearly expressed her desire to be with the petitioner and similar statements were recorded by the police, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of. The corpus would be free to go with the petitioner. An apprehension was expressed regarding safety and security of the corpus till she reaches villageLitriya, Tehsil Jaitaran, Pali.

¶31

In view of apprehension expressed, the respondent State is directed to provide adequate security to the petitioner as also corpus till they reach village-Litriya, Tehsil Jaitaran, Pali.

¶32

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶33

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶34

21-DJ/-

Vinod Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jhilmil Mewara Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Suhalka Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Sisodiya Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Shiv Shakti Mines Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S Neelkanth Mahadev Marble Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh Vs Badami Devi