The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad bench) on 31st March,2021 (Wednesday) comprising of a bench of Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Bhalchandra U. Debadwar refused to detain an adult girl who had eloped with a 20-year-old man, after she appeared before the court pursuant to a habeas corpus petition filed by her father. (Chandrashekhar Dnyaneshwar Chavan v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others)
The bench was hearing the plea filed by one C. D. Chavan (father of the girl) claiming that his daughter eloped with the man in December 2020 and had been missing since then.
Facts of the case
The father of the woman who had approached the Court by way of a Habeas Corpus petition. The father had moved the High Court in February 2021 contending that his daughter eloped with the man in December 2020, and thereafter, he had filed a missing complaint with the Ambejogai Police Station (Rural), punishable under Sections 365, 342, 343, 324, 323, 506, 143, 147, 148, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court on March 16, 2021 directed the District Superintendent of police at Beed to look into the matter, monitor the investigation and to produce the missing woman before the Court.
On March 31, 2021 the woman appeared before the Court voluntarily. The Court verified her identity and age and noted that she was 18 years and six months old, an adult individual.
The woman told the court that she is in love with the man who is 20 years and 11 months old and that they have planned to get married after he attains the marriageable age of 21 years.
The woman told the court that she had left her father’s house and had been “happily living” with the man at a residence unknown to both the parents. She added that her father had assaulted the man’s father and blamed him as his son had eloped with her.
The woman sought protection, apprehending harm from the petitioner to her, the man, and his parents. The woman refused a request by the petitioner’s lawyer to speak or meet with her father.
Contention of the Parties
The learned Prosecutor submitted that the role of the police has concluded since the missing person is before the Court. Though the missing girl has asked for protection for a longer duration, it is left to the Court to pass an appropriate order. He would suggest that the Assistant Sub-Inspector present in this Court today would, at best, accompany the missing girl and respondent No.5 in view of their apprehension and would ensure that they safely board a bus to travel to a place of their choice.
The learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner or his relatives will not cause any physical harm to his daughter or to respondent No.5 or to the parents of respondent No.5.
Courts Observation & Judgment
The Court having recorded the statement deemed it appropriate to direct that,
“if the missing girl or respondent No.5 suffer any physical harm and if they allege that the petitioner has caused the said harm, the petitioner would then be liable for action, in accordance with law.”
The Court also remarked,
“Needless to state we expect the father of respondent No.5, namely, Bhagwan Sonnar, to show restraint and reciprocate by not committing any offence against the petitioner.”
Lastly, the Court noted,
“Since the missing girl is an adult and respondent No.5 is also an adult, though not of a marriageable age, we have no reason to detain the missing girl, considering the specific replies given by her, as recorded herein above.”
Accordingly, the father’s plea was disposed of.
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
