Disposed

Deep Singh @ Pradeep Singh @ Laddu v. Seniour Superintendent of Police U.S Nagar

Uttarakhand HC10 Jul 2019HABC/16/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court ordered an ossification test to ascertain the age of Smt. Fiza. The Medical Officer reported her age as 19 years. The Court held that she cannot be confined in Bal Grah, allowing her to go with her husband, and disposed of the habeas corpus petition.

What did the court decide?

Smt. Fiza is directed to be released from Bal Grah and is free to go wherever she wants, specifically with the petitioner.

Deep Singh @ Pradeep Singh @ Laddu Vs… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Habeas Corpus Petition No. 16 of 2019

¶3

Deep Singh @ Pradeep Singh. ………...Petitioner.

¶4

Versus.

¶5

Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar

¶6

and others. …....Respondents.

¶7

Present:

¶8

Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents no. 1 and 2.

¶9

Coram:

¶10

Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

¶11

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

¶12

This Habeas Corpus is filed by the petitioner requiring the production of Smt. Fiza. Smt. Fiza was directed to be produced before this Court. Smt. Fiza is present today in the Court.

¶13

Today in the morning session, she was present. Child Welfare Committee, Udham Singh Nagar required the Incharge, Rajkiya Bal Grah, Bakh, Almora to keep Smt. Fiza in that Bal Grah vide letter dated 06.05.2019 (at one place, date is mentioned as 06.04.2019, at the top right side). In the morning session, this Court has passed following orders:

¶14

“On behalf of the State, a letter dated 06.04.2019 of Child Welfare Committee, Udham Singh Nagar is placed, by which the Incharge, Rajkiya Bal Grah, Bakh Almora was directed to keep Smt. Fiza in that Bal Grah. In this letter, the age of Smt. Fiza is stated to be 13 years with the bunch of documents, which have been placed before the Court.

¶15

¶16

There is another letter dated 16.05.2019 of Child Welfare Committee, Almora addressed to Child Welfare Committee, Udham Singh Nagar. In paragraph 1 of this communication, the Child Welfare Committee, Almora has observed that the girl does not appear to be 13 years of age and it is so recorded while recording the submission of Smt. Fiza, when she has stated that her date of birth is 20.02.1999.

¶17

According to Smt. Fiza, her date of birth has been rightly recorded in the Aadhaar card, but in school record, her date of birth has been changed by her parents.

¶18

Learned State Counsel would submit that in the school record, her date of birth is recorded sometimes in the year 2002.

¶19

There is no matriculation certificate. The school record which is referred to is when Smt. Fiza was allegedly admitted in class I. She studied, according to learned State Counsel, till class IV.

¶20

We consider that ossification test of Smt. Fiza be conduced to ascertain her age. Chief Medical Superintendant, B.D. Pandey Hospital, Nainital shall get ossification test conduced today itself to ascertain her age.

¶21

A report shall be placed before the Court at 2:00 PM.”

¶22

Chief Medical Officer, B.D. Pandey (Male) Hospital, Nainital now reports that based on the report of the Radiologist, Dental Surgeon and Mahila Chikitsadhikari, the age of Smt. Fiza is about 19-year.

¶23

State has disputed her date of birth. As stated, when Smt. Fiza was produced before the Child Welfare Committee, it was then observed that she does not appear to be of 13-year of age. Today before this Court, she states that she is 19-year old and wants to go with the petitioner - Deep Singh with whom she had married.

¶24

¶25

In fact, it is the case of the petitioner that Smt. Fiza is his legally wedded wife. After marriage, they were apprehending threats at the hands of their relatives. They sought protection from Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, which was provided to them vide order dated 20.07.2018 passed in CRM-M30527-2018 (O&M), Fiza and another Vs. State of Punjab. It is also the case of the petitioners that two FIRs were lodged against him. In one of the FIRs, arrest stay has been granted and in another, after filing of charge sheet, this Court stayed the proceedings.

¶26

According to the State, age is in dispute. In Aadhar Card, date of birth of Smt. Fiza is recorded as 20.02.1999. After ossification test, it has been reported that Smt. Fiza is 19-year of age. Smt. Fiza herself states that she is 19 years of age. She categorically and emphatically states that she does not want to go to Bal Garh and she wants to go with her husband - petitioner. She also states that petitioner is present in the Court.

¶27

This Court does not want to make any observation about the age of Smt. Fiza - as to what her exact age is. It may be a matter of further deliberations subject to the material produced by investigating agency, if any, during the course of investigation or trial of the case, as the case may be.

¶28

At this stage, after ossification test, what Smt. Fiza has stated and what is recorded in the Adhar Card, this Court is of the view that Smt. Fiza cannot be confined to Bal Garh. She is free to go, wherever she wants to go.

¶29

With the above observations, petition stands disposed

¶30

of.

Deep Singh @ Pradeep Singh @ Laddu v. Seniour Superintendent of Police U.S Nagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deep Singh @ Pradeep Singh @ Laddu v. Seniour Superintendent of Police U.S Nagar

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

Shivani Vs State of Uttarakhand

Indrani @ Indrawati Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Sonam Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sardar Gaganjot Singh Sethi Vs Smt Rinit Bhamrah Sethi

Sabnoor Alias Khushi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sara Idrisi Alias Archana Joya Vs State of Uttarakhand