Ravi v. State (Govt Of NCT Of Delhi) & Iors
$~10 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 456/2018 RAVI ..... Petitioner Through:
Mr. Varun Tyagi, Advocate.
versus STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS.
..... Respondents Through:
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) for State.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR JUSTICE I.S.MEHTA
O R D E R
% 13.02.2018
1. The Petitioner has come to this Court seeking issuance of writ of habeas corpus to the police to produce his wife Madhuri, whom he married on 6th January, 2018.
2. The allegation of the Petitioner is that the parents of Madhuri have confined her against her wishes and are not allowing her to meet him.
3. On receipt of an advance copy of the petition, the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station (PS) Begumpur has filed a status report dated 13th February, 2018 in this Court. It is stated therein that no complaint of the Petitioner was received at PS Begumpur. However, a call had been made at PS Subzi Mandi on 4th February 2018. On that basis a team of police officials was sent to Moradabad (U.P.) to bring Madhuri back. It is stated that on 10th February, 2018, Madhuri along with her mother came to PS Begumpur where Madhuri gave a written statement that W. P (Crl) 456 of 2018
although she got married to the Petitioner on 6th January 2018, she realized thereafter that the Petitioner was the real brother of her bhabhi (sister-in-law) and such a marriage is not permissible according to the caste to which she belongs. According to Madhuri, on 6th January 2018, she called her family following which her mother and brother came to Meerut to take her back. She informed the SHO that she went back with her parents and brother of her own free will and she has not been abducted by them or anyone else forcibly. Since then she has been residing with her family and has not been confined illegally by them.
4. Although learned counsel for the Petitioner insisted that the Respondents have detained Madhuri against her wishes and that the Petitioner should be allowed to meet her once in the Court premises, Madhuri who is present in Court has declined to do so.
5. In the circumstances, the Court is satisfied that there is no case made out for grant of the relief prayed for in the present petition. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to avail other remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law.
6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. S. MURALIDHAR, J.
I.S. MEHTA, J.
FEBRUARY 13, 2018 'dc'
W. P (Crl) 456 of 2018