LOKUMAL KISHINCHAND MANGHNANI Vs. VIVEK ARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed this Criminal Revision Application challenging the legality and correctness of an order, dated September 20, 1971 passed by the learned Presidency Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Criminal Case No. 162/S of 1971 pending before me.

(2.) THE first petitioner Lokumal and the second petitioner Laxmibai are the parents and the third petitioner Kishinchand is the paternal grandfather of a young lady by name Kamini, who is now aged about nineteen years. The first respondent Ellis is a handsome young man, aged about twenty one years and by birth, he is a Jew. Kamini and Ellis were studying in Hill Grange High School, Bombay and during the years 1966 to 1968, they were in the same class. Being classmates they became acquainted with each other and their acquaintance soon developed into close friendship. Their mutual attraction became so strong that they eventually decided to marry and live together as husband and wife. Both of them passed the Secondary School Certificate Examination held in March or April 1968. Kamini thereupon joined Sophia College, Bombay and in January 1969, Ellis was sent by his parents to Canada for further studies. After going to Canada, Ellis pursued Ids studies and he also took up some employment. Kamini and Ellis Were writing letters to each other and their correspondence shows that they did not give up their original idea of getting married and living together as husband and wife. Ellis ultimately came to Bombay on a short leave on October 17, 1970 for the purpose of marrying Kamini and taking her with him to Canada.

(3.) ACCORDING to Ellis, on his arrival in Bombay, the petitioners did not allow him to meet Kamini or talk to her even on telephone and he found that Kamini was not allowed to go out of the house of her parents or to have communication with him in any manner and she had been made a virtual prisoner. A civil suit, bearing No. 5959 of 1971 also came to be filed in the City Civil Court, Bombay, seeking a declaration that the alleged marriage between Kamini and Ellis was null and void and some other ancillary reliefs. Therefore, on May 12, 1971, Ellis filed Miscellaneous Petition No. 440 of 1971 in this Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That petition was, however, withdrawn on July 9, 1971 and Ellis thereupon filed a complaint in the Court of the Presidency Magistrate, Girgaum, Bombay on August 4, 1971 alleging that the petitioners had Wrongfully restrained the movements of Kamini and she had been illegally and Wrongfully confined in the house of her parents with the sole object of marrying her to one Ghanashyam. He also alleged that the petitioners were likely to take Kamini outside India to some place such as Hongkong for the purpose of getting her married a second time. The learned Magistrate issued process under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code against all the three accused mentioned in the complaint. He also issued a search warrant under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The search warrant was executed by the police on the following day. Kamini Was found in the house of her parents and she was produced before the learned Magistrate at his residence at 9.30 p.m. Kamini told, the learned Magistrate that she was a major and her parents had not exercised, any influence upon her to stay with them. She also stated that she desired, to go back to her parents. Kamini was allowed to go back to her parents on executing a bond to remain present in Court whenever required. On August 17, 1971, the learned Magistrate examined Kamini in the presence of both the parties and their learned advocates. She again denied having been wrongfully restrained or wrongfully confined by any of the accused and she told, the learned Magistrate that 'she was moving alone in Bombay frequently and making use of the telephone freely.' She further told the learned Magistrate that she did not, however, have any talk with Ellis as she, having realised about six days after the marriage that she had committed a mistake in marrying Ellis, did not want to talk to him.