RAJESH KUMAR Vs. SHILPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production of respondent No. 1, Smt. Shilpa.

(2.) The petitioner is a christian by birth. After converting to Hinduism, he married respondent No. 1, daughter of respondent No. 2 in Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Durg, on 12-7-1985 in accordance with Hindu rites, including saptapadi. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 thereafter went to the petitioners parents house at Bhilainagar and stayed there as husband and wife. On 13-7-1985, at about 3 a.m., respondents 2 and 3 accompanied by police, came to the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 were taken to the police station, where respondent No. 2 threatened the petitioner and his parents with dire consequences, if they did not hand over the custody of respondent No. 1. Finally, the petitioner allowed respondent No. 1 to go with her father after executing some papers described as compromised documents. After their departure, the petitioner made several attempts to locate her whereabouts but all invain. As a last resort, the petitioner sent a legal notice by a registered post to respondents 1 and 2 but they were returned with the endorsements that the addressees were out of station. The petitioner learns that respondent No. 1 has been taken away against her wishes by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 3 and is residing with him at Rewari (Haryana). Artocities are being perpetrated on respondent No. 1 so as to persuade her not only to refuse to go to the petitioner but also give her consent so as to involve the petitioner in some criminal offence. The petitioner apprehends that she may soon be married against her wishes. He, therefore, prayed for a writ of habeas corpus.

(3.) The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by their separate returns, denied, that the petitioner ever converted to Hinduism or that any marriage took place as alleged. According to them, respondent No. 1 was residing with her parents at Dhamtari. The petitioner who was prosecuting his studies as a student of polytechnic, with the help of his friends and associates, forcibly kidnapped respondent No. 1 from the house at Dhamtari. A report to that effect was lodged in the police. As a result of that, the police traced her out and restored to her father. It is also alleged that respondent No. 2 is a wealthy businessman of Dhamtari and the petitioner, who is a christian, filed the petitioner on false grounds to extort money. Respondent No. 3 stated that respondent No. 1 after staying for about four months with him, she voluntarily went to her maternal uncle, Rambilas Singhai, Excise Inspector, Gurgaon. They denied that her stay at Rewari was an illegal detention or was against her will or that she was subjected to any artocity.