KUNDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Kundan Singh has sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of filing this habeas corpus petition. He has prayed that the respondents be directed to recover Smt. Anita from respondent No.4 Keshav Prasad Singh and to produce her before the Court. Further, it has been prayed that Smt. Anita be set free from the unlawful detention.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as revealed from the writ petition, is that he had married Anita, daughter of respondent No.4, on 21.09.2011 in accordance to Hindu rites and rituals. Thereafter, it is stated that both of them started living together. Further, it is averred that due to misunderstanding, Smt. Anita had filed an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Mathura, wherein a case was registered as 34/XI/2013. It was stated in the application, inter alia, that the non-applicant is a Diploma Engineer and was earning well, but he was not maintaining the applicant. The non-applicant Kundan Singh had filed reply to the said application for maintenance. The statement of both the parties were recorded. The parties had then stated that the misunderstanding was over, after discussion with the relatives, and the parties have entered into a compromise. Since then, they have started living together. Consequently, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Mathura, vide order dated 12.07.2013, dismissed the application filed by Smt. Anita under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

(3.) According to the petitioner, both of them were living together as husband and wife. On 15.11.2013, respondent No.4 Keshav Prasad Singh, who is father of Anita, had taken her to his residence. The petitioner had then requested respondent No.4 to send back Anita, but he was told that she would come after some time. It is averred in the petition that now Smt. Anita had informed the petitioner on mobile that she has been confined in the house and not being allowed to go anywhere. She has also asked the petitioner to set her free as she was not being allowed to live in accordance to her wishes. It is stated that Anita has attained majority and had passed M.Com. It is alleged that respondent No.4 had detained Anita unlawfully and against her wishes. She is not being allowed to live with the petitioner, where she is entitled under law to live with him. Under these circumstances, it has been averred that the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.