CHIRANJI LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided at this juncture itself. For, the case is with regard to the custody of Smt. Anita Dhobi, who is not only pregnant, but also confined at Children's Home, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that one Shri Sukh Lal Dhobi had lodged a FIR at Police Station Muhana wherein he had claimed that his daughter, aged about fifteen years, is missing. However, after searching for her, he came to know that his daughter is being kept in the house of Sitaram Dhobi. When he went there, he had been told to forget his daughter. He filed a written report. During the course of investigation, statements of Anita Dhobi were recorded both under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. On 12.07.2010, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the concerned Magistrate. According to her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Smt. Anita Dhobi clearly stated that, in fact, she is nineteen years old; she has married the present petitioner. She has further stated that she would like to live with the present petitioner as his wife. However, notwithstanding her emphatic statement, vide order dated 14.07.2010, the Judicial Magistrate, Sanganer directed that Smt. Anita Dhobi be kept in the Children's Home, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Subsequently, she again disclosed her will before the learned trial Court on 21.07.2010 and 04.08.2010. On 28.07.2010, the petitioner filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, Sanganer for permission to meet Smt. Anita Dhobi at the Children's Home. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2010. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Prahlad Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that Smt. Anita Dhobi not only in her statement states that she is nineteen years old, but even according to the opinion of the Medical Board, she is said to be between the age of eighteen or nineteen years. Hence, she is a major person. According to her statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has clearly stated that she is nineteen years old, she is pregnant and she would like to live with the present petitioner with whom she is married. However, these statements have been ignored by the learned Judge. Considering the fact that she is a major person, she cannot be confined to the Children's Home. For, as a major person, she should be permitted to go wherever and with whomsoever she wishes to live.