PINTUBHAI RAYCHANDJI MALI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner, praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus requesting the Court to issue direction to the Respondent No.2 i.e. Police Inspector, Tharad Police Station to produce Alkaben wife of present petitioner before the Court. In support of his assertion, petitioner submitted that he got married with the Corpus on 5/5/2023 at Jahu Mata Mandir, Near Court, Patan, Taluka and District: Patan and thereafter, they stayed together at difference places as mentioned in para 4.14 to 4.22 claiming that after the marriage, they went to Jaipur early morning on 6/5/2023 purchased certain articles, and checked out from the Hotel at Jaipur on 8/5/2023 and they came to Patan as they decided to surrender themselves before the police station under whose jurisdiction they had married. In support of the said assertion made, copy of the bus ticket is also annexed at Annexure-D, as claimed. As coming out from the additional affidavit, they reached Patan city on 9/5/2023 and went to Patan Taluka Police Station wherein after making entry in the station diary, officials of Patan Taluka Police Station, recorded the statement of the petitioner as well as of the corpus.

(2.) As asserted further, after recording of statement, both went to Radhanpur and they stayed together till 25/5/2023 by taking on rent a room owned by one Chinukaka near APMC, Market Yard, Radhanpur. As claimed in para 4.22, during their stay at Radhanpur, family members of the petitioner threatened them with dire consequences and therefore, Corpus gave one application on 17/5/2023 to Tharad Police Station for doing the needful, which is at page 10/E. It is further asserted in the petition that petitioner gave an application to S.P. Banaskantha at Palanpur as also PSI, Diyodar Police Station, which is annexed with the petition at page 10/H and page 10/K, which reflects date of application to be 28/6/2023, duly typed including date. However, there appears no endorsement with regard to receipt thereof by the office of S.P. as also PSI, Diyodar Police station and the mode by which it is sent. It is asserted in that application that on 24/6/2023, when the petitioner along with the corpus visited Diyodar for some social work, his in-laws quarreled with the petitioner and abducted his wife i.e. Corpus. It is further asserted that despite the petitioner attempted to rescue her, he was thrashed and in-laws of the petitioner went away with his wife. It is further asserted in the said application that in-laws i.e. the accused named in the application took away one of the mobile phone from his wife as she was having two mobiles with her. Therefore, as asserted further, with another mobile, petitioner had a talk with his wife and she was crying, beaten with fist blows as also belt and she is being compelled to get divorce from the petitioner. It is further asserted therein that she being illegally confined, this Court may call the Corpus and ascertain her wish.

(3.) The matter was first circulated on 5/7/2023 and at the request of learned advocate then appearing, it was adjourned to 10/7/2023. Since initially, there appeared no averments with regard to staying together as married husband and wife, after getting married, the learned advocate then appearing sought for time to come with further documents in support of his assertion and the document showing the marriage including the documents, which led to registration of marriage. Thereafter, it came to be adjourned on 17/7/2023 and Mr.M.B.Rana, learned advocate informed the Court that he has instructions to appear on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 6 herein and he sought for permission to file his vakalatnama as no notice was issued. As recorded in an order dtd. 17/7/2023 perhaps he might have received information about filing of this petition through police. However, he tendered an affidavit dtd. 17/7/2023 wherefrom it revealed that petitioner is already married with one Kankuben on 22/4/2022 and respondent No.4 along with affidavit produced even marriage invitation card evidencing the same. As asserted in the affidavit, as per the knowledge and information, there was no divorce between the petitioner and said Kankuben prior to so called claim of marriage with Corpus, Alkaben. Therefore, we directed the learned advocate then appearing to get the documents presented for registration of marriage such as application form. On that day, though learned advocate then appearing produced the application form, it was not ordered to be taken on record, though kept in the file. We have passed that order taking it on record vide an order dtd. 2/8/2023. That is how Court is having copy of memorandum of marriage, which was tendered in the office of Marriage Registrar for the purpose of registering marriage with it.