SANJAY Vs. SHANTILAL VYAS AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :- The petitioner, claims to have married Jyotibala on 26.9.1986 at Joshi Mangal Karyalaya, Dhantoli, Nagur. She is the daughter of the respondent No. 1 and sister of respondent No. 2. On 29-6-1986 the petitioner and his wife Jyotibala went to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to obtain their blessings. However, according to the petitioner, the respondents were enraged on hearing about the marriage. The petitioner further submits that he went to the police station, Ambazari, Nagpur, to lodge a report. However, the Station House Officer refused to accept such report and asked the petitioner to approach the Court. Hence, he was constrained to file the present petition, requesting for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondent to produce Jyotibala before the Court. We accordingly directed the respondents to to produce the girl Jyotibala and she was accordingly produced before us.

(2.) We questioned Jyotibala in the open Court in the presence of the counsel and the relatives of the parties, but we found that Jyotibala was reluctant to disclose the true state of affairs. We then told her if she was afraid of making the statement in open court, then she could disclose us the same in Chamber, if so desired. She expressed that she would like to go with him. She, however, made it clear that she was not being detained by her parents in the house forcibly. After she disclosed her desire to go with the petitioner, we sent for the counsel and the parties. There is no dispute that she is 21 years of age. She is major and , therefore, entitled to live as per her wishes.

(3.) Mr. Sadavarte, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 argued that the present petition is not maintainable and requested for a short adjournment. We do not think, any useful purpose will be served by granting an adjournment since the girl has expressed herself in an unequivocal terms that she wants to go with the petitioner, her husband. The matter is delieate and urgent and we do not think, it would be proper to adjourn the case. We hold that the girl Jyotibala is entitled to go with the petitioner, and direct that the respondent should not obstruct her or create any difficulty in her way. Rule is made absolute. Rule made absolute.