MANOHAR JATAV Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this habeas corpus petition filed by the father of Sangeeta (herein after called "corpus"), it was stated that she was taken away by respondent No. 6. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the corpus was produced before this Court. The corpus engaged Shri Pradeep Katare as her counsel. It was stated by Shri Katare that corpus solemnised marriage with respondent No. 6 and she does not want to go with her parents. During the preliminary hearing of this matter and awaiting the ossification test report, she was sent to Nari Niketan. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the Primary Board Marksheet of 2007 (Annexure P-2), which shows that the date of birth of corpus is 15.03.1995. As per the ossification report also, corpus was found to be minor.

(2.) Shri Katare heavily relied on Section 6(c) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (herein after called "1956 Act") to submit that as per this provision even the minor married girl is required to be handed over to her husband. He also relied on Section 19(a) and Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (herein after called "1890 Act). On the strength of these provisions, it is stated that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor girl after marriage is her husband. By placing reliance on 1956 Act, it is stated that the Court is required to see the wish of the girl also. However, Shri Katare has not disputed that the corpus is a minor girl.

(3.) Per Contra, Shri M.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 12 of the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929 and Section 6 of 1956 Act to submit that such marriage cannot be recognized. Shri Rawat and Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently argued that there is no material to show that even a marriage had taken place. Shri Sundaram submits that respondent No. 6 was arrested and is in custody in Crime No. 75/12 and offences under Section 363 and 366 of IPC are registered against him for forcefully and without authority of law taking away the corpus. He submits that the corpus was wrongfully detained by respondent No. 6.