MUSSRAT SHAHIN Vs. MOHAMMAND DAUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant habeas corpus petition was filed by Sri Alimuddin on behalf of Smt. Musharrat Shaheen upon a claim that the lady was his wife and she was being detained illegally by her father and brother. It was asserted in the application that Smt. M. Shaheen was aged about 19 years on the date of filing of the application (January, 1997) and she was the legally wedded wife of Alimuddin Khan, It was stated that Alimuddin had been a permanent resident of the district of Siddhartha Nagar but was now staying in Calcutta in connection with his livelihood. He developed intimacy with M. Shaheen and their marriage was performed at Nakuda Mosque, Calcutta, under the Special Marriage Act at Siddhartha Nagar. On 2.4.1997 she came to Siddhartha Nagar alongwith Alimuddin and started living there permanently. On 1st June, 1997, respondent No. 2 (Yaser Arafat) brother of girl, came to Siddhartha Nagar and took her away to Calcutta on the pretext of illness of her father, Mohd. Daud (respondent No. 11), on a promise to reach her back to Siddhartha Nagar within a week. However, on 6th June, 1997, the girl telephoned her husband from Calcutta about her being beaten up by the respondents simply for having married Alimuddin. She also complained of illegal detention by her father and brother. She also informed that she was apprehending that she would be shifted to some unknown destination against her wishes and might be compelled to marry again.

(2.) Upon this information, Alimuddin and his mother went to Calcutta. They tried to contact the girl and she allegedly told the mother of Alimuddin in a talk through window that she was forcibly confined in her father's house. It was not denied in the application that Alimuddin had one living wife living at Siddartha Nagar and this lady had no complaint against her, nor was she against the second marriage of Alimuddin with M. Shaheen. A prayer for writ of habeas corpus for production of the girl in the Court was made together with a prayer for such other consequential order as the Court would deem fit.

(3.) Upon mis application an order was recorded on 23.6.1997 by Hon'bie G.P. Mathur, J. who had questioned the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The learned Counsel sought time to make submissions on this point and the matter was adjourned. The matter was next placed before Hon'bie O.P. Garg, J. on 16.7.1997 who had, after hearing the learned Counsel for the applicant, directed issuance of notice to respondents 1 and 2 for filing counter affidavit within a time specified therein. A time for rejoinder was also given. There was a further direction that Musamat Shaheen was to be produced before the Court on 16.10.1997. On this adjourned date, the matter was placed before Hon'bie. I.M. Quddusi, J. and a counter affidavit was also filed. The petitioner was granted only a day's time to file a rejoinder affidavit and the girf was directed to be produced on 17th October, 1997 when the matter was to be put up in the Chambers of the Hon'bie Judge presumably on the ground of the delicate situation of the case.