Uttarakhand High Court
Sahab Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 September, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Habeas Corpus Petition No.17 of 2022
Sahab Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others ....Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. V.K. Jemini, D.A.G. assisted by Ms. Meena Bisht, Brief
Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been preferred seeking
production of the corpus of Ms. Soniya, who, according to the
petitioner, is his wife and is in illegal detention and custody of
the respondent no.3, her father.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
3. On 08.09.2022, the Court had requested the
respondent no.3 and his daughter, if she is with him, to join
the proceedings through video conferencing from the Video
Conferencing Room of the District Judgeship, Haridwar.
4. Today, the respondent no.3, Mr. Peerumal, and
Ms. Soniya joined the proceedings from the Video
Conferencing Room of District and Sessions Court, Haridwar.
They were identified by the petitioner, who is present in
person.
5. The Court, first, ensured that Ms. Soniya is all
alone in the room. Thereafter, the Court questioned her as to
whether she has been illegally detained by her father? To it,
she answered in negative. According to Ms. Soniya, she has
no pressure to stay with her parents. She, on her own, is
staying with her parents. The Court further questioned her
that, according to the petitioner, she is the wife of the
petitioner. She says that she does not know about it.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that that Ms. Soniya may be called in the Court and, perhaps,
her personal interaction with the petitioner may have some
different impact.
7. The Court suggested that the petitioner could
speak to Ms. Soniya through video conferencing, but before
doing so, the Court sought the views of Ms. Soniya. has told
that she is ready to talk to the petitioner.
8. The petitioner asked Ms. Soniya, "How many
times a man marries in his life?" To it, Ms. Soniya replies,
"Once". The another question by the petitioner to Ms. Soniya
was did she not marry him? In answer to this question, Ms.
Soniya again expressed ignorance. She said "Mai nahi janti"
(I do not know). Another question was put by the petitioner to
Ms. Soniya that if Ms. Soniya stayed with the petitioner for 3
years, how could she say that she does not know as to
whether she married the petitioner or not? To it, Ms. Soniya
still replied, "Mai nahi Janti ( I do not know)."
9. In fact, the Court had also asked Ms. Soniya as
to whether she knows the petitioner Sahab Singh? In answer
to it, Ms. Soniya says that earlier she knew the petitioner, but
she does not know him now.
10. When these proceeding were underway, the
petitioner told that he is being threatened by the family
members of Ms. Soniya. Therefore, the respondent no.3 may
be directed not to extend any threat to the petitioner.
11. When this statement was given, the Court called
the respondent no.3 inside the room, from where Ms. Soniya
had joined the proceedings. The Court asked the petitioner to
speak to the respondent no.3. When the petitioner told the
respondent no.3 that his father is being threatened by the
respondent no.3, in answer to it, the respondent no.3 started
crying. Ms. Soniya also interrupted saying that he was never
threatened. The respondent no.3 said that he and the
petitioner belong to the same village. They have settled the
dispute. The petitioner was told to lead his own life and let
Ms. Soniya live her own life. The respondent no.3 has said
that he has not extended any threat. He has also submitted
that, perhaps, the petitioner has been ill advised to proceed in
the manner he is proceeding.
12. It is a Habeas Corpus petition. The petitioner
claims Ms. Soniya, daughter of the respondent no.3, as his
wife. Ms. Soniya and the respondent no.3 have joined the
proceedings through video conferencing. Ms. Soniya has not
confirmed that she is wife of the petitioner. But, as stated, she
has told to the Court that she, on her own will, is staying with
her parents.
13. In view of the discussion as aforesaid, this Court
is of the view that nothing survives in this Habeas Corpus
petition. Accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed.
14. The petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
20.09.2022
Ravi Bisht
