UDAI SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS habeas corpus petition has been filed by the father seeking the production of his daughter Anju who as per allegations in the petition is in unlawful custody of the respondents NO. 4 and 5. Notices of the petition was given to the respondents. In response to the notice, respondents No.1 to 3 have filed their reply. The respondents have stated in their reply that in the first instance on 16.4.2012 a written compliant was submitted by the petitioner regarding abduction of his daughter Anju by one Dharmveer on 10.4.2012. On the aforesaid report, FIR No. 273/2012 was registered u/s 363, 366 and 379 IPC at Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur and investigation was started.

(2.) IT has further been stated that the detenu, daughter of the petitioner Anju was recovered by the police, during the course of investigation and she was handed over to the father vide order dated 18.5.2012. The accused Dharmveer was arrested by the police. It is thus stated that the detenu had been recovered and handed over to the father and as such, the petition should be disposed.

(3.) THE question therefore, arises is that, when as per the facts which have come before us during the course of the hearing that the detenu has been married, once to Dharmveer, against the wishes of the parents (petitioner) and again by the parents against her wishes then in the light of the provisions contained in section 6 of the Act, the petition could only have been filed by the husband as the guardian of the minor wife. Then it would be the husband who would be entitled to seek the custody of the minor wife for which as stated above, no proceedings have been initiated by the husband. But the detenu has stated before the SDM that she is 18 years of age and a major and again in her statement today recorded by the Deputy Registrar [Judicial] of this Court that she is 18 years of age, thus being a major she is free to decide her own destiny. The age given by her in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is some what under a doubt as she claims that the said statement was given under duress as she was to be married by her parents who wanted her custody to save their honour.