SUBHRASMITA SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 27.09.2008 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh in G.R. Case No. 150 of 2008 by which he rejected the prayer of the petitioner to be allowed to stay with her husband is challenged in this revision.

(2.) THE background facts are that F.I.R. was lodged by one Pramod Kumar Bhatt stating therein that his niece (daughter of his sister) Subhrasmita Sahoo (the present petitioner) was going to the village pond along with her mother and the wife of the informant. One Chandrakanta Behera (Opp.party No.2) kidnapped her forcibly. On the basis of F.I.R. O.I.C., Odagaon Police Station registered P.S. Case No.27 of 2008 and took up investigation, during the course of which the victim girl was rescued and was produced on 02.07.08. before the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh. On the same day the learned S.D.J.M. directed recording the statement of the victim girl under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and also rejected the prayer for bail of the accused. On the same day a petition was also filed by the mother of the victim for her custody. The victim girl, on the enquiry of the learned S.D.J.M., strongly refused to go with her mother to her parents house contending that there was possibility of her being tortured both mentally and physically by her parents and other members of the family. However, her claim to be a major girl did not find favour with the learned S.D.J.M. He sent the victim girl to the "SEVA" a voluntary organization located at Nayagarh for her stay. Later Chandrakanta got bail by this Court vide order dated 28.08.08 in BLAPL No.9228 of 2008. When the matters stood thus, the victim girl filed a petition from the short stay home "SEVA" for her release and to be permitted to stay with her husband on the ground that in the meanwhile she has become a major on completion of 18 years of age and further that since she is in advance stage of pregnancy, in view of limited resources of the short stay home, she is not being given proper attention and care which is necessary for a pregnant woman. The learned S.D.J.M. rejected the prayer occasioning the present revision.

(3.) A close perusal of the impugned order shows that the learned Court below has rejected the prayer mainly on two grounds; firstly that even assuming that the petitioner is a major, her desire to go to the house of her supposed husband is not appropriate and may adversely affect the investigation and secondly that earlier the Court had rejected such a prayer and therefore, it can not review its own order. In addition the learned S.D.J.M., Nayagarh has placed reliance on a decision of the Gauhati High Court reported in 1984 CRI. L. J. 1310 (Nowrangrai Agarwalla Vs. Rambhagat Thakur).