TAKHUBHA PRATAPSING Vs. MAHIPATSINH BHAVSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Shri P. V. Hathi waives service of rule for respondent No. 1 and Shri R. M. Vin waives service of rule for respondents 2 and 3.

(2.) This is the epilogue of a tragic story. We are distressed at our helplessness. The constraints on the reach of the Court leave us in the -end with the realization of our limitations. We have been approached for justice. The power of the Court to secure to every person his life and liberty knows no bounds. When these are in peril to assure relief to the aggrieved no cost is too heavy and no effort too excessive. But in this case despite our best efforts we regret to say we have been unable to provide relief the passage of a fairly long time and our special attention to the case notwithstanding. We have quite often to depend on the executive agency for active investigation when there is a motion for habeas corpus and if that machinery does not view the matter with the gravity it deserves despite being alerted in no uncertain terms we can only frown on what appears to us as unconcern if not indifference. That is the situation here.

(3.) The story here is not unique. It is commonplace. Our legislations have not changed the social attitude to dowry. It persists. The failure to pay the promised dowry deferred for want of funds has broken up many a home. Many have suffered at the hands of in-laws. Many had to give up life. Wives have run away either to rejoin their poor parents or to join the wide world outside to lead a life of shame. Seminars galore and Mahila protests notwithstanding the situation continues to be what it was.