MANISH SURYAKANT RAMPURE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner claims to have married a girl by name Anubha on 1.3.1996. Anubha is the daughter of respondent nos. 3 and 4. He has annexed the certificate of marriage issued by the Registrar of Marriages, Mumbai Suburban District, Bandra, Mumbai. He has stated the anticipating some opposition Anubha wrote a letter dated 11.3.1996 to Oshivara Police Station as well as Andheri Police Station. It is his assertion that as a matter of fact though they were married Anubha continued to stay with her parents and ultimately in the presence of relatives of both sides the engagement ceremony was again performed on 28.3.1996. The marriage was to be performed on 28.4.1996 as per the convenience of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Accordingly petitioner's parents got marriage invitation cards printed. Thereafter the petitioner tried to contact Anubha at her residence but respondent nos. 3 and 4 stated that Anubha had gone to Goa alongwith relatives and she will comeback after 4-5 days. After the said period the petitioner again tried to contact Anubha but respondent nos. 3 and 4 informed the petitioner that Anubha has gone to some other place alongwith her relatives. The petitioner suspected some foul play and went to Oshivarn Police Station on 11.4.1996. The police called respondent nos. 3 and 4 to the police station and respondent nos. 3 and 4 informed that Anubha will come back on 16.4.1996. However, the petitioner alleged that the mother of the petitioner received an anonymous phone call on 12.4.1996 whereby some stranger allegedly calling from Delhi informed the petitioner's mother that Anubha is at Delhi and she will not be sent back. The caller also threatened the petitioner's mother to persuade the petitioner and to forget Anubha for ever of face dire consequences. The petitioner immediately lodged a police complaint. It is under the aforesaid circumstances the petitioner alleged that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 have wrongfully and illegally confined and had detained his wife said Anubha and respondents have also unlawfully restrained the said Anubha from meeting the petitioner.

(2.) INITIALLY on 15.4.1996 notice before admission returnable on 18.4.1996 was granted, in pursuance to which respondent nos. 3 and 4 appeared before the court alongwith their advocate. By order dated 18.4.1996 we directed respondent nos. 3 and 4 i.e. parents of the girl to produce their daughter in this court today.

(3.) WE have talked and interviewed the said girl Anubha in court. Anubha as of this date is 23 years old. She has categorically stated that she is staying with her parents of her volition and there is absolutely no coercion or compulsion. She has asserted that she has not been unlawfully detained or prevented to do anything against her wish. Anubha has further stated that she would prefer to stay with her parents and she does not want to join the petitioner.