RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Rajendra has challenged the order dated 2.4.2013 where by his application for releasing Mrs. Nirma from 'Nari Niketan' has been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Mrs. Nirma had left her parental house on 21.2.2012 with the petitioner. On 15.3.2012, they got married. However, since the petitioner's father, the complainant-petitioner No. 2 was unhappy with the marriage, he lodged a F.I.R. namely F.I.R. No. 35/2012 on 25.2.2012 at P.S. Sadar, Distt. Tonk for offence under Sections 363 and 366-A I.P.C. During the course of investigation, the police recovered Mrs. Nirma. Her statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the Magistrate. Even before the police, she has stated that she left the parental house of her own volition. She had married the petitioner of her own free will and was residing with him over a month. Since she was kept in the custody, she moved an application through her counsel for releasing her from the police custody. Meanwhile, her father, Ramkaran also moved an application for her custody ostensibly on the ground that she is a minor. She categorically refused to go with her father and raised allegation that she was twice ravished by her cousin, Prahlad, and her father wished to sell her of to another person. By order dated 25.4.2012, the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tonk dismissed both the applications and sent Mrs. Nirma to the Children Home at Ajmer. Meanwhile, the petitioner faced the trial for offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 376 I.P.C. But by judgment dated 1.2.2013, he was acquitted by the trial Court. After his acquittal, the petitioner filed an application before the Magistrate for release of his wife from the Children Home. However, by order dated 2.4.2013, the learned Magistrate has dismissed his application. Hence, this petition before this Court.

(3.) By order dated 27.5.2013, this Court had directed the Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court to record the statement of Mrs. Nirma. Her statements were duly recorded and taken on record. According to her statements given before this Court, she clearly claimed that about one and half years before, her father got her engaged with the petitioner. However, about two and half months earlier, her father broke- her engagement as he wanted to sell her of to another person. After her engagement, she and Rajendra used to meet frequently, and used to talk to each other regularly. Therefore, she wanted to marry only Rajendra and none else. When she heard that her father is about to sell her of, she asked Rajendra to come to her village. She came with Rajendra to Jaipur of her own free will. In Jaipur, they stayed at a house for one and a half months. Meanwhile, they also got married in 'Arya Samaj Temple'. She further claimed that she wishes to live with Rajendra even in the future. According to her, her father had falsely implicated Rajendra in a criminal case.