NIRBHAYA SINGH Vs. WARYAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to the order of this Court dated 11.8.2000, the parents of the alleged detenu, namely, Waryam Singh and Gurdev Singh who were arrested and have been produced in Court. The petitioner claims to be legally wedded husband at Raj Kaur. Initially, a case under Sections 363/366/376/34/342 IPC was registered against the petitioner on 29.12.1999 vide FIR No. 351 at the instance of respondent No. 1, the father of the wife. However, Raj Kaur made statements before the police to the effect that she has married the petitioner in accordance with the Sikh rites. Even then, the parents were compelling the wife to return to the parents. The marriage between Raj Kaur and petitioner was not approved by the parents, as the petitioner belongs to the Jat community and the parents of wife belong to the Baazigar community. The police handed over the custody of Raj Kaur to the respondents on 16.3.2000. Consequently, the petitioner was constrained to file the present Habeas Corpus petition.

(2.) THE petition came up for hearing on 26.4.2000 when notice was issued to be respondent i.e. the father and the mother of wife-Raj Kaur for 3.5.2000. They were directed to produce the alleged detenu on that date. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned time and again as the notices could not be served on the respondents. On 25.5.2000, last opportunity was given to the respondents to produce Raj Kaur in Court on the next date of hearing. It was made clear that otherwise, the court may adopt coercive method for her appearance. On the next date of hearing, not only the respondents, but the counsel for the respondents were also absent. Fresh notices were issued for 4.7.2000. On 5.7.2000, Waryam Singh appeared in Court and stated that his daughter had gone to village Chakmannewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar. He was, therefore, directed to produce Raj Kaur in Court on 10.7.2000. On the next date of hearing, again the counsel for the respondents as well as the respondents were absent. Raj Kaur was not produce in Court. Again as a last chance, the matter was adjourned to 13.7.2000. On that date, the counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 stated that there is no instructions from respondents No. 1 and 2. The mater was adjourned to 14.7.2000.

(3.) ON an enquiry being made from the father-Waryam Singh, he has stated that his daughter is in the habit of disappearing from the house. She had earlier disappeared with the petitioner. He has further stated that she has now gone to Village Chakmannewal, Tehsil and District Ganganagar (Rajasthan). He is unable to state the mode of transport used by the girl for reaching the destination. He has further stated that on enquiry, it has been found that she has not reached the said Chakmannewal.