SHUSHMA KUMARI Vs. NAGENDRA JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. A. Misra, J. This petition has been moved with the allegations that the marriage of Smt. Sushma Kumari was solemnised on 17th of March, 1986 at Allahabad with Tarun Kumar Anand according to Hindu rites and since then they have been living as husband and wife. The respondent No. 1, who is father of Smt. Sushma Kumari alongwith Vishnu Deo Misra, brother-in-law of the petitioner and Vinay Kumar Misra, came at the residence of the peti tioner at 11 a. m. on 20th of March, 1986 armed with deadly weapons and asked her to accompany them by means of force. The husband Sri Tarun Kumar Anand was threatened with death and the respondents succeeded in taking away Sushma Kumari by use of force. Sinse then Sushma Kumari is in illegal confinement with respondent No. 1. This affidavit was sworon by the hustatid Sri Tarun Kumar Anand through whom the petition was filed. This , petition was presented before this Court on 16-7-86 and on that date the learn ed counsel for the petitioner prayed for and was granted one days' time to file supplementary affidavit giving therein the details of the marriage alongwith the name of the priest and his affidavit also that the marriage, was celebrated under his supervision. No supplementary affidavit was filed within the time allowed. The case was, therefore, put up for admission on 23rd of July, 1986. On that date it was passed over on the ground of the illness of the petitioner's counsel Sri A. C. Chaturvedi. It was taken up on 25th of July 1986 for admission it so appears that on that date affidavit of Tarun Kuiuar Anand sworn on 18-7-86 was filed. In this affidavit while giving details of the marriage Sri Tarun Kumar Anand deposed that the petitioner was married with him on 5th of March, 1986 in Arar Ghat Temple, P. S. Murliganj, situated between the District Madhya Pura and Saharsa of Bihar but due to some typing error it was inadvertantly mentioned in the petition that the marriage took place at Allahabad on 17-3-86. In view f this major and material contradiction in the two versions regarding the date and place of marriage, the learned counsel for the petitioner on 25th of July, 1986 prayed for and was granted a week's time to study legal position and make his submissions regarding the impact of the material contradictions, in believing or rejecting the sworn testimony of the deponent. The case was, therefore, listed on 4th of August, 1986 and on that date again it was passed over due to illness of Sri A. C. Chaturvedi, the peti tioners' counsel. Again on 6th of August, 1986 it was passed over on the illness of Sri A. C. Chaturvedi. On 8th and 12th of August, 1986 it was passed over on the request of the petitioner's counsel. On 14th of August, 1986 it was again passed over on the ground of illness of Sri A. C. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. On 29th of August, 1986 again it was passed over on the request of Sri Chaturvedi, petitioners' counsel. On 3rd of September, 1986 the name of Sri A. C. Chaturvedi was not correctly printed and so on that ground it was taken on 15th of September 1986. The learned counsel for the petitioner on that date stated that Sri Tarun Kumar Anand was living with his wife Smt. Sushma Kumari at the residence of Prof, K. C. Kapoor, Institute of Printing Technology Colony, Teliargaaj, Allahabad on 20th of March, 1986, when the respondent carried her away by use of force. It was further stated that Tarun Kumar Anand was student of Printing Tech nology at Allahabad. The learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for and was granted one week's time to file the affidavit of Sri K. C. Kapoor or any member of his family to say that Tarun Kumar Anand was living with his wife at their residence and that Smt. Sushma Kumari was taken away from there. The petitioner then moved an application for amendment of his earlier affidavit wherein he has deposed that the marriage took place at Allahabad on 17-3-86. As it was not possible to permit the amendment of the deposition so the prayer for amendment of the affidavit has been rejected.

(2.) IT has vehemently been argued by the learned counsel for the peti tioner that in a petition in the nature of habeas corpus the facts stated regard ing the marriage etc. are not at all relevant and so the facts deposed by him and the contradictions should not be taken into consideration. I am unable to agree with this contention. To take action on a petition of habeas corpus, the affidavit filed, should and must inspire confidence and the Court must be satis fied that prima facie case is made out to call upon the respondents to appear before the court and produce the corpus. In the instant case the manner in which the petition has proceeded leaves no room for doubt that the depositions of Tarun Kumar Anand are wholly unreliable, IT is very difficult to believe that a newly married husband would not remember the place where his marriage was sole an is ad. There may be scope for error in the date but I am unable to believe that there can be any error regarding the place where the marriage was solemnised. In the instant case in the first affidavit the petitioner Tarun Kumar Anand says that his marriaga was solemnised at Allahabad and that too on 17th of March, 1986, and three days thereafter his wife Shushma Kumari was forcibly carried away by her parents. When he was required to give the details of the marriage, the name of the priest and other details. Then instead of filing the affidavit of any priest the alleged husband came with different theory by giving different date and place of marriage. In the second affidavit he says that the marriage was solemnised on 5th of March, 1986 at Arar Ghat Temple, P. S. Murliganj in the State of Bihar. The petitioner was again given an opportunity to file affidavit of Prof. K. G. Kapoor of Printing and Technology Institute, Allahabad, where he says to have been residing as student alongwith his wife on 20th of March, 1986 when the respondents took away Shushma Kumari from there by force. Affidavit of Sri Kapoor has not been filed on the ground that he is away in connection with 'pind dan' ceremony. Affidavit of one tanjay Kumar Chaubey has been filed who says that he is neighbour of Prof. K. C. Kapoor, resident of Printing Technology Colony, Allahabad. The affidavit of Sanjay Kumar Chaubey is not worth reliance. There is another factor which needs consideration in this petition. According to the facts alleged in this petition it was on 20th of March, 1986 that the respondents carried away Shushma Kumari and that too in the presence of her husband Tarun Kumar Anand by means of force. The petition has been filed after a delay of four months on 16th of July 1986. The delay under the prevailing circumstances again makes contention of the deponent Tarun Kumar Anand unworthy of belief. Having considered the entire material before me I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that prima facie it is not established that Shushma Kumari a legally wedded wife of Tarun Kumar Anand has been carried away by the respondents by use of force on 20th of March, 1986 from Allahabad and that she is being illegally detained by the respondents.