KARIYAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS PETITION SEEKING HABEAS CORPUS FOR PRODUCTION OF SUREKHA, WIFE OF THE PETITIONER IS FILED ON NOVEMBER 21, 1995. THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT SUREKHA KNEW HIM FOR CONSIDERABLE LENGTH OF TIME. ON 16TH OCTOBER, 1995 PETITIONER CONTRACTED MARRIAGE WITH SUREKHA BEFORE THE MARRIAGE OFFICER, SRIRANGAPATNA IN MANDYA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT 3 IS THE FATHER OF SUREKHA AND BELONGS TO MARWARI COMMUNITY WHILE THE PETITIONER IS A COORGI. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE PETITIONER IS THAT RESPONDENT 3 DID NOT APPROVE OF THE MARRIAGE AND ON 1ST NOVEMBER 1995, FORCIBLY TOOK AWAY SUREKHA WHILE SHE WAS SITTING IN THE BAKERY RUN BY THE PETITIONER'S FATHER. THE COMPLAINT MADE TO THE POLICE, METAGALLI POLICE STATION NOT RESULTING IN TRACE OF SUREKHA, AND THAT GAVE RISE TO THE FILING OF THIS PETITION.

(2.) AFTER THE NOTICES WERE SERVED, RESPONDENT 3 APPEARED IN PERSON. ON 15TH DECEMBER 1995, HE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE HIS DAUGHTER SUREKHA IN COURT. THE PETITIONER WAS DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT RS. 2,000/- TOWARDS THE TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RESPONDENT 3 AND HIS DAUGHTER AS BOTH OF THEM HAD SHIFTED TO RAJASTHAN. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRECTION, THE PETITIONER DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT AND TODAY RESPONDENT 3 HAS PRODUCED HIS DAUGHTER SUREKHA IN COURT. SUREKHA IS A MAJOR. WE INTERVIEWED HER IN OUR CHAMBER. SUREKHA DID NOT DISPUTE THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS CONTRACTED, BUT CLAIMS THAT SHE WAS FORCED TO ENTER INTO MARRIAGE. WE DO NOT BELIEVE HER CLAIM ON THIS COUNT. THE PHOTOGRAPHS PRODUCED AS WELL AS THE CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE AND SEVERAL LETTERS SHOWN TO US BY THE PETITIONER CLEARLY INDICATE THAT SUREKHA HAD WILLINGLY MARRIED THE PETITIONER. SUREKHA ALSO ADMITTED THAT SHE WAS RESIDING WITH THE PETITIONER FOR A DURATION OF THREE MONTHS. WE ENQUIRED FROM SUREKHA AS TO WHETHER SHE WISHES TO GO WITH THE PETITIONER AND SHE CLEARLY STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WISH TO JOIN THE PETITIONER BUT WISH TO LIVE WITH HER PARENTS. WE ALSO INDICATED TO HER THAT SHE BEING MAJOR, IT IS OPEN FOR HER TO LIVE WITH ANY PERSON OF HER CHOICE AND NO ONE INCLUDING THE POLICE AUTHORITIES CAN BRING ANY PRESSURE UPON HER. SHE IS A CLEVER GIRL AND IS READING IN COLLEGE AND WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT SHE CAN WELL UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO. AS SUREKHA REPEATEDLY STATED THAT SHE DOES NOT WISH TO GO WITH THE PETITIONER, WE ARE AFRAID WE CANNOT GRANT ANY RELIEF TO THE PETITIONER.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, PETITION FAILS AND RULE IS DISCHARGED. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. AMOUNT OF RS. 2,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE OF ORDER DATED 15TH DECEMBER, 1995, BE RETURNED TO THE PETITIONER.