Vasant Dattatray Shelake v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

Gokhale

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1148 OF 2026 Vasant Dattatray Shelake ..Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..Respondents __________ Ms. Mrunmai Rokade i/b. Narayan G. Rokade for Petitioner. Ms. Supriya Kak, APP for State/Respondent.

Mr. Sidheshwar N. Birajdar a/w. O. B. Fawade, for the Respondent Nos.4 to 8.

__________ CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL & SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 1 APRIL 2026 PC :

1.

This is a petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. The Petitioner claims to be the husband of the daughter of the Respondent Nos.6 and 7. The Respondent Nos.4, 5 and 8 are related to the Respondent Nos.6 and 7. It is the case of the Petitioner that, he got married with the Respondent Nos.6 & 7's daughter on 06.02.2026 at Alandi. On 11.02.2026, she left her matrimonial house and went to her parent's house; because, according to the Petitioner, her parental family had made a false VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2026.04.02 12:41:27 +0530

representation that they had accepted their marriage. Once she went to her parental house, they denied their stand and told him that they were not accepting their marriage and they would not allow her to go back to her matrimonial house. 2.

Therefore, we had issued notice to the Respondents. They are represented by learned counsel Mr. Sidheshwar Birajdar. The Respondent Nos.6 and 7's daughter is also present in the Court. She is an adult. She is 21 years of age. We interviewed her. She has stated that, after marrying the Petitioner she realized that he had suppressed many facts from her and she does not trust him any more. She made a categorical statement before us that she does not want to go with the petitioner and she wanted to stay with her parents. The statement is recorded.

3.

She further submitted that her documents regarding her education are still with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is directed to handover those documents to her and if necessary, the police shall intervene to secure the custody of those documents. 4.

In view of the statement of the Respondent Nos.6 & 7's

daughter, no further orders can be passed in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)