SUBODHRAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has approached this court in this writ petition for issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus commanding respondent No. 4 to produce Smt. Veena Devi, who, according to the petitioner, is his married wife. THE petitioner has contended in the petition that he and Veena Devi got married in a temple in the year 1994 and they started to live conjugal life. But as the petitioner belongs to Yadav caste and Veena Devi belongs to Vaishya community, they had to face many difficulties due to intercaste marriage. A week ago, respondent No. 4, the father of Veena Devi, along with some anti-social elements came to the residence of the petitioner and took away Veena Devi by force. When the petitioner approached to get Veena Devi back, respondent No. 4 threatened to kill him. THE petitioner, informed the Police, but the police did not taken any action. In reply to the notice, Respondent No. 4 has filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that Veena Devi is bis daughter and she was married to Bharat Bhushan Prasad alias Makhan Lal, son of late Amrit Lal Sah in the year 1991 and out of the wedlock, one daughter and two sons were born. However, bis daughter Veena Devi due to ill-treatment from her husband, left her 'Sasural', and, has been living with Respondent No. 4 with her three children. Because of the ill-treatment of her husband, his daughter Veena Devi got mental shock and consequently she sometimes behaves hysterically-throwing and breaking the house hold articles, scratching her own body, beating her children etc THE petitioner is a neighbour of respondent No. 4 and they are known to each other. THE petitioner is a married man and his his wife's name is Smt, Sunaina Devi and she got three daughter out of the wedlock and that the the petitioner's wife Sunaina Devi is still alive. Respondent No. 4 has emphatically denied the allegations contained in the writ petition, which, accordingly to him, are false and frivolous. THE affidavit-opposition was filed on 13-3-1995 and the petitioner filed rejoinder thereto on 15-3-1995. In the Rejoinder, the petitioner has not at all denied the statements of Respordent No. 4 that Veena Devi was married to Bharat Bhushan alias Makhan Lal in 1981 and that their marriage still subsists and that petitioner is a married man and his wife's name is Sunaina Devi and she is alive. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed a complaint petition in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna city, alleging that wife Veena Devi was wrongfully detained and tortured by respondent No. 4. THE learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the allegation, issued search-warrant and caused Veena Devi ordered to keeps her in the Remand Home. In paragraph 4 of the Rejoinder, the petitioner has made a prayer that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna City, be directed to get the statement of Veena Devi recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and to release her accordingly inasmuch as she is major and is able to take decision. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 and the learned counsel for the husband of Veena Devi, who has made an application to be impleaded as Intervener-Respondent. THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner is a married man and his wife's name is Sunaina Devi and she is alive, and Veena Devi is also a married woman and her husband, Shri Bharat Bhushan Prasad alias Mokhan Lal is alive. It is not the case of the petitioner that Veena Devi has been divorced by her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Veena Devi has been deserted by her husband. Since there is no decree of divorce, the marriage of Veena Devi with Sbri Bharat Bhushan Prasad still subsits. THE petitioner and Devi are admittedly Hindus by religion As such, when the spouse of Veena Devi, namely, Bharat Bhushan Prasad alias Makhan Lal as well as spouse of the petitioner, namely, Suniana Devi are alive, the alleged marriage between the petitioner and Veena Devi is void ab initio. THE petitioner has absolutely no right to live with Veena Devi, who is admittedly the wife of another person. THE alleged marriage betwee'n the petitioner and Veena Devi, as claimed by the petitioner, also attracts the offences under provisions in Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Cade This petition is apparently frivolous and vexatious. By making unfounded allegation that Veena Devi is his wife, the petitioner has dragged respondent No. 4 not only before this court but also in the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna city. Respondent No. 4 as well as his daughter Veena Devi have been subjected to unnecessary harassment, humiliation and loss. For the reasons stated above, we dismiss this petition, with cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable to Respondent No. 4. Petition Dismissed.