VINITA Vs. AMAR NATH MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A letter addressed to Honble the Chief Justice purportedly written by one Vinita disclosed that she has been a minor taken into a second marriage by Dr. Amar Nath Mishra who had a wife from before alive and Children from the first wedlock. Treating the said letter as an application for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, a rule nisi was issued calling up on the 1st respondent (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent), Dr. Amar Nath Mishra, to show cause and directing for the production of the petitioner in safe custody before the Court, Vinita, second wife of the respondent, was accordingly produced before this Court on 30-3-89. Respondent, it appears, accompanied her and came to the court premises but stayed away from the Court on the said date for the reasons best known to him. He along with three other persons remained all along with the girl outside the Court Room. She could get free access to the Court only when she was ushered in the Court Room. From her behaviour and demeanour we were not quite sure that she was fully in control of her mind and self and was not exercised by extraneous influence. According to our order dated 30-3-89, what we had been thinking aloud quite for some time is as to why Dr. Amar Nath Mishra (respondent) has chosen to remain away from the Court premises while be bad accompanied the girl Vinita right from Bhagalpur to Patna in his own car and what for those three persons accompanied her up to the doors of the Court Room. We ordered: In the circumstances, we think it prudent and advisable that she may be given some breathing time to remain segregated from her present environment to compose herself well so as to be able to talk out of her own free will white in full possession of herself. We, accordingly, direct the Principal Probational Officer, Mrs. Shanti Sinha, who has been good enough to be present here at our behest through Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, her (Vinitas) counsel, who is appearing amicus curiae in this Court, to take care of the girl until she is free from all extraneous influence. After discussing the matter in all its ramifications, we came to the conclusion that it was in the best interest of everyone concerned especially Vinita-that she be kept in the Female Ward of the Bankipore Central Jail giving her all facilities available to a Class A lady detenu. We, accordingly, directed the Superintendent of Jail to see to it that no outsider, excepting those who went there with the written permission of this Court under its due seal, was given any access to her.

(2.) On 31-3-1989 respondent appeared. His first wife, Smt. Sheela Mishra, also accompanied him since a notice calling upon the respondent to show cause had already been served, and both Smt. Sheela Mishra and Dr. Amar Nath Mishra volunteered to depose. They were examined by the Court. Specimen handwriting of Vinita was put for identification to the respondent (Court - Witness No. 2)Dr. Amar Nath Mishra. The letter addressed to the Chief Justice was also put to him. He denied the handwriting of his wife Vinita in the letter addressed to the Chief Justice but claimed that it was doubtful that the handwriting of Vinita marked "X was her writing. In his deposition, however, Dr. Mishra stated that he was a Professor of Medicine in the Bhagalpur Medical College, a post borne in the cadre of the Bihar Health Services, that he had entered into Bihar Health Services in the year 1960 and since the beginning of his service career he has been bolding one or the other teaching post, and that his present emoluments were around Rs. 3,000/- per month from the Government service besides income derived by running a private clinic of his own, which was around Rs. 8,0000/- per year. He admitted that his first wife Sheela Mishra was alive and he had two daughters who were already married, that he had a son who, however, was dead, and that he had a grandchild. He claimed to have married Vinita on 12th December, 1988 at Deoghar in a private house, and that I had not taken any permission from the Government of the State for marrying Vinita as my second wife and J knew that 1 was committing an offence when I married Vinita. Sheela Mishra, who has deposed as Court witness No.1, stated that she was aged about 47 years and was married to Dr. Mishra about 37 years ago. She had a son who died. Although she and Dr. Mishra had 2 daughters and a grandchild from one of the daughter, since she could not bear a child any longer, she started looking for a bride for her husband so that they could get a son. According to her deposition, in course of the said search she learnt about Vinita and her father looking for a bridegroom for his daughter and sent for him. She had deposed that she completed the negotiations and settled a bride for her husband and, accordingly a marriage was solemnised on the 12th of December, 1988 at Deoghar temple. She also stated that her husband was in the Government service presently posted in the Bhagalpur Medical College Hospital and was also running a clinic of his own successfully. Both court witness No. 1 and court witness No. 2 have stated that the age of Dr. Mishra to be 52-53 years.

(3.) Vinita, when asked, denied to have written the letter marked "Y" to the Chief Justice. Dr. Mishra deposed to the same effect by stating that the letter was not in his wife Vinitas handwriting. The document marked X, however, was the writing of Vinita taken before the Court, Dr. Mishra declined to identify the same as the writing of Vinita. The contents of the letter, however, excepting part, were allegations that Vinita was a minor, that she was taken down against her will by Dr. Mishra in the name of her being his married wife; and that she had been cruelly treated by Dr. Mishra and other members of his family, which are established. Dr, Mishra had a wife when he took Vinita as his second wife. He had not taken Government's permission for taking a second wife in the life time of his first wife. Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules declare a second marriage in the life time of sponse as misconduct. Hindu Marriage Act declare such a marriage void. Dr. Mishra has admitted that he knew that it was an offence to take a second wife; yet he took a second wife.