CRWP No.836 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRWP No.836 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.06.2011 Suresh ........ Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh and others ........ Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH PRESENT: Mr. SK Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rampal Verma, Advocate, for Mr. Rajive Sharma, Advocate, for U.T. Chandigarh. Ms. Monisha Lamba, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** JORA SINGH, J. Suresh, preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the release of Seema @ Nasima minor daughter of the petitioner who is in the illegal custody of respondent No.5-Rahish Khan. Allegation of the petitioner is that CRM No. M 9269 of 2011, was instituted by respondent No.5 and the alleged detenue for protection of their lives and liberty, on the allegation that detenue and CRWP No.836 of 2011 -2- respondent No. 5 are major and they have married. Representation Annexure P-4 is pending with Superintendent of Police Nuh, District Mewat. Vide order dated 25.3.2011, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Nuh, Mewat, to enquire as to whether the petitioners are major and if they are, so necessary steps be taken to protect their lives and liberty. As per order dated 8.4.2011, the Medical Superintendent of the General Hospital, Sector-16 Chandigarh, was directed to constitute a team of doctors to conduct the ossification test on Seema @ Nasima. Order further shows that when the boy and girl after attending the Court on 25.3.2011, were going out of the High Court then a message was received from the High Court Security, that protection be granted to the couple, then protection was granted to the couple and they were taken to Protection House, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh. It has also been mentioned in the order that Seema @ Nasima was directed to be shifted from Protection House, Sector 19-B Chandigarh to Nari Niketan, Sector-26, Chandigarh. As per ossification test report, radiological age of Seema @ Nasima is between 13 to 16 years and dental age is between 15 to 16 years. Reply filed by respondent No. 4 i.e. Mahavir Singh, Inspector, SHO, Police Station Sector-3, Chandigarh, is to the effect that as per order of this Court dated 8.11.2011, Seema @ Nasima, has been examined by the Medical Board, constituted by the Medical Superintendent-cum-Jt. Prinicpal Medical Officer, Government Multi- CRWP No.836 of 2011 -3- Specialty Hospital, Sector-16, Chandigarh and she has been kept in Nari Niketan, Sector-26, Chandigarh. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 also filed reply in the Court today and the same is taken on record. Copy supplied to the counsel opposite. Allegation of respondent No. 5 is that Seema @ Nasima is major and is legally wedded wife of the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per order dated 8.4.2011, direction was given to the Medical Superintendent of the General Hospital, Sector-16 Chandigarh, to constitute a team of doctors to conduct the ossification test on Seema @ Nasima. Argued that as per message received from the High Court Security, when the boy and girl after attending the Court on 25.3.2011, were going out of the High Court that protection be granted to the couple, then protection was granted to the couple and they were taken to Protection House, Sector 19-B, Chandigarh. Later on, Seema @ Nasima was shifted from Protection House, Sector 19-B Chandigarh to Nari Niketan, Sector-26, Chandigarh. Till today statement of the alleged detenue has not been recorded by the Court, if wants to accompany her father i.e. the petitioner then she be sent with her father or if she wants to accompany respondent No. 5-Rahish Khan then she be sent with respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further requested that direction be given to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, to record the statement of Seema @ Nasima, then as per her statement suitable order be passed. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 stated that CRWP No.836 of 2011 -4- respondent No. 5 has no objection if Seema @ Nasima is to be produced before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, to record her statement. In case she wants to accompany her father i.e. the petitioner then she be sent with the petitioner or in case she wants to accompany respondent No. 5-Rahish Khan then she be sent with respondent No. 5. In 1999 (1) PLR (Delhi) 47, “Neetu Singh Vs. State”, Hon'ble Division Bench of Delhi High Court held that a minor girl sent to Nari Niketan by police cannot be kept in protective home against her wishes. In 1998 (1) RCR (Criminal) 697, “Seema Devi @ Simran Kaur Vs. State of H.P. and another”, marriage of a girl 15 years of age is not illegal or void. In the present case, allegation of the petitioner is that girl is minor and she cannot be sent with respondent No. 5 whereas allegation of respondent No. 5 is that girl is major and is his legally wedded wife. She solemnized marriage with him against the wishes of the petitioner. Now, the question is, if, girl is minor and she solemnized marriage with respondent No. 5 against the wishes of the petitioner then whether she can be kept in Nari Nikaten against her wishes? In view of statement by the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.5, the instant writ petition is disposed of with a direction to U.T. Police, Chandigarh, to produce Seema @ Nasima, who is presently kept in Nari Niketan, Sector-26, Chandigarh, before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, on 6.6.2011. CRWP No.836 of 2011 -5- Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, is directed to record the statement of Seema @ Nasima. In case, she wants to accompany with the respondent No. 5 then she be sent with respondent No. 5 or if she wants to accompany with her father i.e. the petitioner then she be sent with the petitioner or as per statement necessary orders be passed accordingly. Disposed of. June 03, 2011 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE