PATEL VERABHAI KALIDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of rule waived by the Ld. A.P.P. as well as learned advocates appearing for the rival parties. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner, father of minor girl [Parul]. He has prayed for calling upon the respondents nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to produce the petitioner's daughter before this Court and to hand-over her custody to the petitioner, who is her natural guardian. [He has been the resident of village Ghuma, Distirct Ahmedabad]. He has his wife [Gauriben] and three minor children, [Parul, Vikram and Vaishali by name]. He has been cultivating his agricultural land [in village Ghuma]. His daughter [Parul], whose birth date is 7/11/1981 as registered in the records of [Ghuma] Gram Panchayat, is his eldest daughter, followed by son [Vikram], aged 14 years and daughter [Vaishali], aged 13 years, respectively studying in 9th standard and 8th standard. Minor girl [Parul] has failed in S.S.C. Examination and was lured to take up a course of Beautician by respondent no. 4. She was accordingly attending the Beauty Parlor run by the respondent no. 4 [- Smt. Hansaben]. Respondent no. 3 [Maheshbhai Dashrathbhai Nayak] happens to be her real brother, residing with respondent no.4. He was having his refrigerator repairing work shop [opposite Anuradha society at Ghuma]. It has been alleged that on 21/11/1998 petitioner's daughter [Parul] was taken away by respondents nos. 3, 4 and 5, respondent no. 5 being the partner of respondent no. 3 in the aforesaid repair work shop. On a search at every place [in Ghuma village] petitioner and his wife did not find minor girl [Parul] as also respondents nos. 3,4 and 5. The petitioner did not register any complaint about the kidnapping or abduction of his daughter [Parul] as he hails from [Patel] community and his daughter [Parul] might earn bad name in the society. Ultimately the petitioner had an occasion to inquire of respondents nos. 4 and 5 about his missing daughter, but he received nothing except abuses and threatening of himself and his relatives being harassed. Respondent no. 4 told him that his daughter might have been killed or she might have committed suicide or might have been sold either at Bombay or Delhi or her brother, respondent no. 3 might be keeping her with him. Petitioner, therefore, approached [Sarkhej] Police Station, but the police officer on duty did not record the complaint saying that police force was not meant for such complaints being recorded. As more than one month had passed without there being any news of his daughter, the petitioner had to file this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Notice was issued and on 18/1/1999 respondents nos. 4 and 5 appeared through M/s. H.L. Patel Advocates. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned advocate informed the Court that he would contact his clients for informing this Court as to whether minor girl [Parul] was in their custody. Ultimately the matter was kept on 26/1/1999 when this Court had an occasion to question minor girl [Parul], who was kept present. All the learned advocates as well as Ld. A.P.P. as well as parents of minor girl [Parul] were present. Minor girl [Parul] specifically expressed that she got herself married with respondent no. 3 [Maheshbhai Dashrathbhai Nayak]. Upon being persuaded to accompany her parents, she has been all throughout positive about not accompanying her parents. She, however, expressed that she would be ready and willing to go and stay at Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad. Her custody accordingly was handed over to the Superintendent of Nari Vikas Gruh, Paldi, Ahmedabad.

(3.) On 29/1/1999 the respondent no. 3 [Maheshbhai Dashrathbhai Nayak] moved Misc. Criminal Application No. 579 of 1999 inter-alia alleging that consequent upon love between himself and minor girl [Parul] both of them married as per Hindu rites at Surat on 24/11/1998 of her free will and without any coercion, pressure or threat from anybody, she having left her parental house voluntarily. After she was produced before this Court as aforesaid and after she was sent to Nari Viaks Gruh, Palid, Ahmedabad, respondent no. 3, the applicant in the Misc. Criminal Application came to know that on 25/1/1999 at about 1.30 in the afternoon minor girl's [Parul's] father [Verabhai] and her cousin [Dilipbhai] went to the aforesaid institution and tried to meet the girl and influence her against the direction of this Court. He has, therefore, expressed his apprehension that minor girl [Parul] might be influenced so as to deprive him to cohabit with his legally wedded wife. Under such circumstances, he has prayed for modification of the order dated 22/1/1999 and for directing minor girl [Parul] being produced before this Court with a substantive prayer of handing over her custody to him.