:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1282 OF 2008 Shri Vivek Dinesh Agarwal .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra (Through Ghatkopar Police Station, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for petitioner. Mrs.S.D. Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO,JJ. Dated: June 27, 2008. Dated: June 27, 2008. Dated: June 27, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Sabrad, the learned counsel for the petitioner-husband. Respondent No.2 - Geetanjali daughter of Ramprakash Pande is present in the court and we have talked to her in Chamber. 2. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.2, :2: who is his legally wedded wife, was kept in illegal custody by respondent no.3, the father of Geetanjali and, therefore, he approached this court for a writ of hebeas corpus. He has also filed a complaint registered as NCR No. 2046 of 2008 with the Ghatkopar Police Station on 16/6/2008. Geetanjali told us that her date of birth is 4/11/1984 and the petitioner is born on 14/3/1985. Thus both of them are major. Geetanjali also told us that she was introduced to the petitioner while chitchatting on the internet and she fell in love with the petitioner and ultimately by her own choice she married the petitioner on 2/6/2008 at Delhi. She also confirmed that the Marriage Certificate issued by the Arya Samaj Vedic Marriage Mandal is genuine and the copies of the photographs of marriage annexed to the petition have also been confirmed by her as photographs of the wedding of the petitioner with her. She confessed before us that she managed to escape from the custody of her father from his house in Delhi so as to remain present before this court today and she is keen to join her matrimonial home. :3: 3. The petitioner along with his father Shri Dinesh Agarwal also appeared before us and we have talked to both of them in the Chamber. Mr.Dinesh Agarwal expressed his keen desire that Geetanjali returns to her matrimonial home and she will be received with respect as the daughter-in-law. The marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.2 has been accepted by Shri Dinesh Agarwal and all his family members. 4. In these obtaining circumstances, the main prayer, being prayer clause (b), does not survive any further. So far as the prayer for direction to grant police protection to the petitioner and his family members is concerned, the petitioner, his father and respondent no.2 fairly agreed that no such direction is required to be issued so long as the respondent no.2 joins the petitioner’s family under the orders of this court. It was pointed out by Mr.Sabrad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that though Geetanjali managed to remain present before us today, :4: she has not yet joined her husband’s company for the sole reason to avoid any adverse opinion either by her father or by the investigating agency. 5. We, therefore, record that respondent no. 2 - Geetanjali is keen on joining her matrimonial home as a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the petition is disposed off. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.) (R.Y. Ganoo, J.) (R.Y. Ganoo, J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)