MANISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition are rather unconventional and not commonplace; or so it seems.

(2.) Manish Kumar is a youth, aged about 16 years and a half. He has married Jyoti, as he says, of his freewill. Jyoti is a major and an adult in the cognizance of law, just above the age of 18 years. Pramila Devi is Jyoti's mother and Manish Kumar's mother-in-law. Arjun and Bheem are Jyoti's brothers and Pramila Devi's sons. Manish Kumar, after his marriage to Jyoti, was staying with his wife, his mother-in-law and his two brothers-in-law, Arjun and Bheem. Haushila Devi is Manish Kumar's mother. She appears to have thought that Jyoti, her mother Pramila Devi and her brothers, Arjun and Bheem have enticed away her minor son and forced him into a marriage of sorts, which is illegal for want of the minor's competence under the law. She has gone on to say that Manish Kumar, her minor son, is illegally detained by Pramila Devi, Arjun, Bheem and Jyoti, arrayed as respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 in that order. In keeping with her thought and word, Haushila Devi has effectively instituted the present Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, arraying Manish Kumar as the first petitioner and herself as the second, asking this Court to order Manish Kumar, her minor son, to be produced on a Rule Nisi before this Court and upon production, set at liberty in the manner that Manish Kumar be entrusted to her care and custody.

(3.) Upon the petition coming up before this Court on 18.09.2020, it was admitted to hearing, and a Rule Nisi was issued, ordering the production of Manish Kumar, said to be in the illegal confinement of respondent nos. 5 to 8. The Rule was made returnable on 23.09.2020. On the date of return, Manish Kumar was produced before this Court, and what he said before us about the nature and character of his association with respondent nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 spares no doubt that Manish Kumar was never under any kind of coercion to stay with Jyoti or the other respondents, who are claimed to be illegally detaining him. He also does not appear to have been enticed away. This conclusion on facts can best be fathomed by what he stated before the Court in answer to questions that were put to him. His stand recorded in the Court's order on 23.09.2020 is extracted below: