Smt. Meena Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 3394 MP

                                                                           1


               THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

                                WA No.574/2021
           (SMT. MEENA SHARMA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)



Jabalpur, Dated: 16.07.2021

         Heard Through Video Conferencing:

         Shri Ahadulla Usmani Advocate for the appeal.
         Shri Ankit Agrawal, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.

Heard.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th June, 2021

by which the habeas corpus petition filed by the appellant-mother was

dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the following order :-

"Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 produced the Corpus Abhisarika before this Court through video conferencing. She was specifically asked whether she has married respondent No.5 under some coercion or force. Corpus specifically stated that she has voluntarily married respondent No.5 Mukesh Nayak. She is major aged about 20 years. Her husband/respondent No.5 is an electrician and she want to live with him. Counsel appearing for respondent No.5 had not filed any document to show that Corpus Abhisarika is major. As per own statement, she is major and aged about 20 years.

It is submitted by counsel appearing for respondent No.5 that protection order has been passed by Gwalior Bench of High Court in W.P.No.9191/2020 in favour of respondent No.5 and his wife Abhisarika. Perused order dated 03.06.2021 passed in W.P. No.9191/2021. In the said order, it has been mentioned that Corpus Abhisarika is major and her date of birth is 01/12/2000.] Heard the counsel for the parties.

Considering the statement given by the Corpus before this Court, it is clear that she is not illegally detained.

In view of aforesaid, writ petition filed by petitioner is dismissed."

Shri Ahadulla Usmani, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set

aside as it was not ascertained whether the respondent No.5 had voluntarily

made a statement before the Court by virtual mode, as she had appeared

alongwith the counsel for the respondent No.5. Therefore, it cannot be said

that she made the statement of her free will.

We find that the the learned Singh Judge in his order has observed that

not only the respondent No.5 appeared before the Court by virtual mode,

but she appeared to be major, as her date of birth is 01.12.2000 and she made

categorical statement before the Court that she has voluntarily married the

respondent No.5, her husband Mukesh, who is an electrician and she wants

to live with her husband. In that view of the matter, we do not find any

infirmity in the impugned judgment. There being no merit, this appeal is

dismissed.

                              (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)                   (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
                               CHIEF JUSTICE                              JUDGE
skm

Digitally signed by SANTOSH
MASSEY
Date: 2021.07.16 15:29:15
+05'30'