CRM Nos. 862-63 of 2010 and CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Nos. 862-63 of 2010 in CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.9.2010 Raj Rani ........ Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Batta, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Manoj Makkar, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 8. JORA SINGH, J. CRM No. 862 of 2010 Application is allowed. Annexures P-2 to P-6 are odererd to be taken on record. CRM No. 863 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 Raj Rani W/o Surinder Pal R/o Simla Colony, Mukherjee Park, Near Geeta Metal Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for release of her minor daughter Seema Rani who is in illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 8 and with direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to register a case against respondents No.4 to 8. That date of birth of Seema Rani is 15.5.1995. Earlier she CRM Nos. 862-63 of 2010 and CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 -2- was residing at her parental uncle's house at village Gumthala, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. Now, she was residing with her parents at Simla Colony, Mukherjee Park, Near Geeta Metal Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. That respondents No.4 to 8 are also residing in the adjoining house of the petitioner. That respondent No.4-Manoj @ Sonu, had evil eye upon the detenue-Seema Rani and tried to misguide her. Petitioner had requested the parents of respondent No.4 to stop him from misguiding Seema Rani. That Seema Rani was kidnapped by respondents No.4 to 8. That respondent No.4 moved petition before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to protect his life and liberty and the minor daughter of the petitioner. Petitioner was made a party alongwith her husband and five other relatives. Petitioner had appeared before the Court of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri and produced middle examination certificate showing the date of birth as 15.5.1995. That respondents No.4 to 8 had mentioned the date of birth of Seema Rani as 14.1.1992. Copy of the certificate Annexure P-1 was attached. Original certificate of the detenue was produced in Court by the petitioner. That respondents No.2 and 3 were requested to recover her minor daughter Seema Rani who was kidnapped by respondents No.4 to 8 to marry her with respondent No.4. Respondents No.1 to 3 filed reply in the shape of affidavit of Suresh Chand, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 8 stated that no separate reply is to be filed. Reply on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 is adopted by the answering respondents No.4 to 8. I have learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record. CRM Nos. 862-63 of 2010 and CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 -3- Learned counsel for the petitioner argued Seema Rani is the daughter of the petitioner and her date of birth is 15.5.1995 but respondent No.4 approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, to protect his life and liberty and of Smt. Seema Rani. Certificate was produced to the effect that date of birth of Seema Rani is 14.1.1992. Seema Rani is minor. Marriage of Seema Rani with respondent No.4 is not valid. She is in illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 8. Learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 8 argued that Seema Rani and Manoj Kumar @ Sonu had approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. Statement of Seema Rani was recorded by the SHO, Police Station Jagadhari. Allegation of Seema Rani was that she was residing with her maternal uncle. On 22.6.2010 she had married with Manoj Kumar @ Sonu. Protection be provided by the Court. She is residing with her husband. In view of the report of Inspector Ajit Kumar petition was disposed of. Admittedly, that Seema Rani is the daughter of Raj Rani. According to the certificate date of birth of Seema Rani is 15.5.1995. This fact is clear from Annexure P-1 certificate issued by the Board of School Education Haryana. Annexure P-2 is the copy of petition showing this fact that Seema Rani and Manoj Kumar @ Sonu had approached the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, to protect their life and liberty by showing the date of birth of Seema Rani as 14.1.1992 that they had performed marriage on 22.6.2010 registered at Arya Samaj (Regd.), near Maida Mill Phatak, Sharda Nagar Chowk, Sharanpur. Petition (Annexure P-2) before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, further shows that Seema Rani had filed complaint dated 3.7.2010 CRM Nos. 862-63 of 2010 and CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 -4- before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sharanpur, on the allegation that she was attacked by Baljeet, Raj Rani and Surinder. Second allegation was that parents of Seema Rani were intending to marry her with an old person of above 50 years age by taking sufficient amount. After the institution of petition before learned District and Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, statement of Seema Rani was also recorded by the police. Photocopy of the same is on the file and the statement is to the effect that she had contracted marriage with Manoj Kumar @ Sonu on 22.6.2010. Dispute amongst the parties is whether date of birth of Seema Rani is 15.5.1995 or 14.1.1992. If we presume that allegation of the petitioner is correct that date of birth of Seema Rani is 15.5.1995, then marriage of Seema Rani with Manoj Kumar @ Sonu is neither void nor viodable. After evidence Court is to opine whether date of birth of Seema Rani is 15.5.1995 or 14.1.1992. Secondly, marriage of Seema Rani with Manoj Kumar @ Sonu is valid or not. Rightly or wrongly Seema Rani has contracted marriage with Manoj Kumar @ Sonu and at present Seema Rani is residing with her husband Manoj Kumar @ Sonu, so custody of Seema Rani cannot be illegal. When there is disputed question of law and facts and evidence is required then petition cannot be accepted by declaring the marriage as null and void, that and custody of Seema Rani is illegal with respondent No.4. If petitioner is sure that Seema Rani was kidnapped then she is at liberty to approach the concerned police station and police is to investigate whether Seema Rani was kidnapped or not. With the marriage of Seema Rani with respondent No.4 direction cannot be given to respondents No.2 and 3 to register the case while disposing of the CRM Nos. 862-63 of 2010 and CRWP No. 1541 of 2010 -5- writ petition of habeas corpus. In view of the above discussion, present writ petition without merits is dismissed. September 13, 2010 ( JORA SINGH ) rishu JUDGE