LALJI ISHWARBHAI THAKOR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner claiming to be husband of Respondent No.7 mentioning in para-2.1 that her date of birth is 1/1/1995 and they contracted marriage on 15/2/2023. In support of the said assertion, the petitioner has produced one Certificate of Marriage claimed to be issued by Shubham Marriage Point, 1st Floor, Ramdev Mandir Complex, Near Ghhekanta Court, Ahmedabad. However, no material is produced to show that Shubham Marriage Point has authority to issue any Certificate of Marriage, as provided under the law. At the same time, if at all there is a marriage entered into between the parties, Certificate of Marriage issued by Competent Authority under the law must be produced.

(2.) Though assertion is made in the petition that since the date of marriage i.e. 15/2/2023, both started residing together at the address mentioned in the cause title. However, the application addressed to Police Inspector, Kalupur Police Station, Ahmedabad given on 17/4/2023, as claimed by the petitioner, reflects that one T.I. Rathod, Respondent No.6 herein from a Mobile Number, as mentioned in the application, informed the Respondent No.7 i.e. wife of the petitioner, as claimed by him that he was speaking from a police station and since her parents have given an application, she needs to come to police station for giving the statement. As unilaterally claimed by the petitioner in the application that wife of Respondent No.7 informed him that she has contracted marriage with the petitioner and she is living happy life. Further, it is claimed in the application that you need to come for the statement to be recorded and thereafter she would be sent back. As further claimed in the application, Respondent No.6, T.I. Rathod, on 20/2/2023, came to the house of the petitioner and took his wife along with him. The petitioner was assured of dropping her back at Ahmedabad after her statement is recorded.

(3.) However, said assertion of the petitioner who is aged 33 years does not appear to be of a prudent man. If any person though by name as T.I. Rathod without knowing him and if he hails from police force, that too, police force from a different State would not permit his wife to accompany him. At the same time, if at all her presence was required to record the statement naturally and more probable response to the said act would be to accompany her instead of sending her with Respondent No.6 as mentioned in the petition and the application given to Kalpur Police Station. The person aged 33 years like petitioner has not even cared to ascertain whether local police had accompanied Respondent No.6 that he posed himself as police station officer which response again of the petitioner does not appear to be of a prudent person to the act of Respondent No.6.