JESH SINGH CHIMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prayed for an order directing restoration of the custody of his daughter Rameshvari. The relevant facts leading to the filing of this Writ Petition are in brief as follows :

(2.) THE petitioner is a resident of Village Villovni, Dist. Pali, Rajasthan. Rameshwari, whose custody the petitioner has sought, who is his daughter, according to petitioner, Rameshwari is a minor girl since she was born on 31.1.81. It appears that Rameshwari was taking education in a High School at Village Villovni. However, she lost her interest in education and became irregular in attendance with the result that her name was struck off from school register. At that time she was studying in the IX Standard. The petitioner was however desirous that Rameshwari should take education. According to the petitioner, Rameshwari was also suffering from Tuber-Clauses (T.B.). Therefore, in order to give her proper medical treatment and to enable her to take further education in September, 1997 he sent her to his brother Om Singh who resides at Dharavi in Mumbai. Om Singh run a General Store in the same locality. Respondent No.3 is a boy residing in the same locality and he used to visit the shop of Om Singh. Rameshwari used to attend the said shop with the result that she and respondent No.3 became acquainted with each-other.

(3.) WE have heard Shri Saraogi for the petitioner Smt.Tahilramani, A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Shri Menzes for Respondent No.3. Since the matter involves the question of the future life of the girl Rameshwari, we thought it proper to interview in-camera, Rameshwari herself as well as the petitioner and Respondent No.3. The interview with Rameshwari disclosed that she fell in love with Respondent No.3 and that therefore she got married with him of her own will. She expressed her desire to live with Respondent No.3 and made a categorical refusal to return to the house of the Petitioner. She claimed to be a major girl over 19 years and stated that she had thrice failed in the school. It is not disputed that she had failed in the IX Standard examination.