Shahrukh Abdul Majid Khan v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS

1 / 3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1510 OF 2025 Shahrukh Abdul Majid Khan .... Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

.... Respondents .......

• Mr. Tariq Khan, Advocate for Petitioner.

• Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the State/Respondent.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL & S. M. MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 08th APRIL, 2025 P.C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Tariq Khan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. V. Gavand, learned APP for the State. 2.

This is a Petition for the directions in the nature of writ of habeas corpus directing the Respondents to produce the Petitioner's wife Tannu Chaubey @ Safa Shahrukh Khan. According to the Petitioner, he got acquainted with Tannu in Digitally signed by MANUSHREE NESARIKAR Date:

2025.04.16 12:27:04 +0530 2021. They developed friendship and then they developed love MANUSHREE NESARIKAR relationship. They got married in January 2025. It was an interNesarikar

2 / 3 religion marriage and therefore, the wife's family was not accepting their marriage. Her parents i.e. the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 caused registration of FIR at Jahanaganj Police Station, in Uttar Pradesh against the Petitioner for abducting Tannu. In this situation, the present Petition for writ of habeas corpus was filed. On the last occasion i.e. on 27/03/2025 we had issued notice to the Respondents and in particular to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 with directions to them to produce their daughter. Tannu is 23 years of age. She is an adult. Today, the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are not present before the Court. We had kept the matter in the chamber. But Tannu is present in the Court. She managed to come down to Mumbai from Uttar Pradesh, where she was taken by the Respondent Nos.6 and 7 against her wish. We asked her as to whether she wanted to go back to her parents or she wanted to reside with the Petitioner. We asked her this question in free atmosphere.

3.

We are satisfied that she gave voluntary answers. Her categorical answer was to go and reside with the Petitioner. She is an adult. She is free to take her own decisions. She has stated

3 / 3 before the Court that she has already got married with the Petitioner. In this view of the matter, nothing further survives in this Petition. Tannu, who is present in the chamber, is free to go with the Petitioner. No further directions are required in this Petition.

4.

Another prayer in this Petition is for police protection to the Petitioner and his wife Tannu.

5.

Considering this background, the officers of Nalasopara Police Station, where the Petitioner is residing, are directed to take steps to ensure that the Petitioner and his wife are safe. 6.

For that purpose they can visit the residence of the Petitioner as and when required.

7.

The Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (S. M. MODAK J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)