Manju v. State Of Delhi & ORS

$~7.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 3723/2016 MANJU .....

Petitioner Through:

Mr. M.A. Rahman and Mr. A. Kalam, Advocates versus STATE OF DELHI & ORS .....

Respondent Through:

Mr. Sanjay Lao, ASC with SI Ramesh Kumar, PS Sultanpuri

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL

O R D E R

% 30.12.2016 C.M. No.20333/2016 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 3723/2016 Issue notice. Notice is accepted on behalf of the State. Mr. Lao has tendered in court the status report which is taken on record. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of habeas corpus directing the production of her daughter Sweta. According to the petitioner, respondent nos.4 to 6 have abducted their daughter Sweta. The petitioner claims that police has not taken any action on her complaint dated 26.12.2016.

Respondent no.4 is present in court along with the daughter of the petitioner, Sweta. They state that they have got married out of their own free

will. The petitioner has placed on record a photocopy of the Aadhar Card of Sweta, which shows that her date of birth is 10.10.1998. She has turned major on 10.10.2016. As per the status report, Sweta and respondent no.4 have got married.

With a view to ascertain the factual position, we have interacted with Sweta in chamber. She states that she has married respondent no.4 out of her own free will and accord after leaving her parental home on 06.12.2016. She states that she has not been subjected to any coercion or pressure from any quarter, much less respondent nos.4 to 6. Sweta has refused to go back with the petitioner to her parental home.

The petitioner and her husband, as also respondent No.4 and his father have also attended the hearing in chamber.

Respondent no.4 and his father have also assured that they shall ensure safety and protection of Sweta, and that Sweta will be kept comfortably by them in her matrimonial home.

In view of the aforesaid development, since Sweta has married of her own accord, no further directions are called for in the present petition qua her production. Being a major, she was entitled to marry of her own free will and accord and, consequently, the petitioner and her husband have been advised to accept that position and not precipitate the situation any further. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Dasti. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J DECEMBER 30, 2016/sr