SARDAR KANHIYA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming to be father of Dheeraj Kaur, respondent no. 4, has filed the writ petition in the nature of Habeas corpus directing the respondent no. 3 to release respondent no. 4 in his favour. The claim of the petitioner is that respondent no. 4 is his daughter and with a view to provide better education he sent his daughter, respondent no. 4, to Bhagalpur to his relation lnder Singh. He used to send money for her maintenance. However, Inder Singh and his wife died and after their death the petitioner intended to bring her daughter from respondent no. 3 but efforts went in vain. It has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that she is being tortured in various ways and has been confined in a room. Thus, this application has been filed for relief as indicated above.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 2. Reply to the counter affidavit has also been filed denying the statement made in the counter affidavit. In such a situation on 8.8.2001 respondent no. 2 was directed to produce respondent no. 4 in the court. Pursuant to the order, the respondent no. 4 has been produced in the court. In presence of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents on question, the respondent no. 4 stated that she was born in the year 1971. However, she does not know the name of her mother and grand mother. From her childhood she was living with grand mother and after her death she was living with her daughter, Laxmi Devi. She passed the matriculation examination while she was living with Laxmi Devi. Subsequently, she started living with her elder Puhwa, Dalji Kaur. However, she died leaving behind her daughter, Gurdip Kaur, who is lecturer at Bhagalpur. She while living with Gurdip Kaur obtained Bachelor Degree from Bhagalpur University and now she is in search of a job. She has applied for being appointed as a teacher. On pointed question she stated that she is major and she does not want to go to the petitioner, the father. She stated that once she went to her father but she was not properly treated. She also stated that there are other reasons but she does not want to disclose. On persuasion also she is not ready to go to her father, the petitioner, According to her statement she is major and from look also appears to be major. A major person has right to live according to her/his own will. The respondent no. 4 categorically denied to go to the petitioner.

(3.) THE such a situation, this court cannot grant any relief to the petitioner, Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.