1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 697/2009. (HABEAS CORPUS) Chandra Kala Keshwani Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. .... Date of Order :: 8th July 2010. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI (In camera proceedings) Mr. Moti Singh, for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Mehar, Government Counsel for the State. Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the respondent No.3. ..... BY THE COURT: This petition seeking a writ of habeas corups, as filed by the petitioner Mrs. Chandra Kala Keshwani complaining of illegal detention of her minor daughter Ms. Namrata @ Neetu by the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi, came to be decided earlier by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court on 11.05.2010. The Division Bench noticed in its order dated 11.05.2010 that the girl Ms. Namrata @ Neetu was minor as per her educational documents wherein her date of birth was stated as 01.10.1992 and she was going to attain majority only on 01.10.2010. The Division 2 Bench also noticed that Ms. Namrata @ Neetu stated herself having married with the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi and also having given birth to a child. However, when it was noticed that there was no marriage certificate available and only the photographs of marriage were being relied upon, the Hon'ble Division Bench, in the given circumstances, though found that as per her statement, Ms. Namrata @ Neetu was not in illegal detention as she married with the respondent No.3 wilfully but then, considered it appropriate to remand her to Nari Niketan until she would attain the age of majority, i.e., until 01.10.2010 while permitting her husband to meet her every day. This writ petition was accordingly disposed of. Thereafter, an application came to be made by the writ petitioner Ms. Chandra Kala Keshwani with her husband Mohan Lal Keshwani in this decided writ petition, being Writ Misc. Application No. 62/2010 wherein it was stated that the parties have settled all their disputes and they prayed for passing of appropriate orders in the writ proceedings keeping in view the settlement arrived at between them and also keeping in view the welfare of the concerned girl. It was also pointed out that the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi approached the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP No. 16885/2010 that was withdrawn on 15.06.2010. After taking note of all the facts and circusmtances and keeping in view the subsequent developments, we allowed the 3 aforesaid Writ Misc. Application No. 62/2010 on 06.07.2010 and ordered this writ petition to be restored to its original number; and to be placed today for orders before appropriate Bench. This is how the writ petition has been restored to its number and placed before us. We also directed all the concerned parties to remain present before us and also directed the State Counsel to ensure presence of the girl from Nari Niketan. Today, specific compromise deed has been filed before us by the mother of the girl and by the husband of the girl wherein it has been specifically agreed by the mother of the girl that her custody may be given to her husband, the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi; and that the petitioner is accepting the factum of marriage of her daughter Ms. Namrata @ Neetu with the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi. We have taken note of all the facts and circumstances and the subsequent developments. We have conferred with Ms. Namrata @ Neetu, her parents, her sister Lata Keshwani, her husband Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi, and so also her father-in-law Parasmal all present in Court in these in camera proceedings. All of them are ad idem that Ms. Namrata @ Neetu may be allowed to remain in company with her husband. We have particularly noticed the fact that though Ms. Namrata @ Neetu is going to attain the age of 18 years on 01.10.2010 but then, she has already contacted 4 marriage with the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi as admitted by all the parties on 10.10.2008 and she has given birth to a girl child on 30.07.2009. In the given circumstances, with the parents of the girl accepting the factum of marriage of their daughter Ms. Namrata @ Neetu with the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi and she has a girl child of about 11 months of age; and when we see all the elements of the settlement now being available between the parties, we are of considered view that there would not be any justification to continue with the detention of Ms. Namrata @ Neetu in Nari Niketan any further. It appears in the welfare of the minors, both Ms. Namrata @ Neetu and the infant in her lap that they be released from Nari Niketan and Ms. Namrata @ Neetu with the child be allowed to go with the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi; and for all practical purposes, the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi shall be considered to be her guardian until she attains the age of majority. We make it clear that this order we have passed keeping in view the paramount consideration of the welfare of the minors. However, in the case of any reason, circumstance or eventuality where the parents of the girl Ms. Namrata @ Neetu having any grievance about their daughter until she attains the age of majority, they shall be entitled to move an appropriate application for revival of this writ petition and for modification/alteration of this order. 5 In the circumstances, we also consider it appropriate and hence direct that it shall be required of the respondent No.3 Bhupendra @ Naresh Singhvi to submit specifically a weekly report on every Monday commencing from 12th inst. disclosing the whereabouts of Ms. Namrata @ Neetu and the child and about their welfare with a copy to the parents of the girl. The Registry shall place before us such reports for perusal in Chambers. With the directions and requirements aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. (DINESH MAHESHWARI ), J. (A.M.SAPRE ), J. Mohan