IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.494 of 2009 SHIVENDRA BHAGAT @ SHIVENDRA KUMAR, S/o Hardangi Bhagar, Resident of Village – Kutubpur, PS Biddupur, District Vaishali ………. Petitioner Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR through the District Magistrate Vaishali at Hajipur 2. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali at Hajipur 3. The officer in charge Police Station Biddupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 4. Sri Ram Bilas Bhagat, S/o Late Biltu Bhagat, resident of Village – Kutubpur, PS Biddupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 5. Smt. Saraswati Kumari D/o Sri Ram Bilash Bhagat, resident of Village Kutubpur, PS Biddupur, District Vaishali at Hajipur 6. Smt. Radha Devi W/o Sri Ram Bilash Bhagat, village Kutubpur, PS Biddupur, District Vaishali ……. Respondents ----------- 04- 13.7.2009 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh for the petitioner, Mr. Ritesh Kumar, learned Assistant Counsel to AAG I for respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Mr. Ashutosh Kumar for respondent nos.4, 5 and 6. In compliance of the earlier order of this Court, the petitioner along with his father, and respondent nos. 4 to 6, are personally present. This writ petition has been preferred for a writ of Habeas Corpus to produce respondent no.5. The petitioner claims to have married respondent no.5, and she has allegedly been confined by respondent nos. 4 and 6 (the father and the mother of respondent no.5, respectively). It is submitted by him that respondent no.5 is his lawfully wedded wife and, therefore, she may be released and should be permitted to come with the petitioner. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner had fallen in love with respondent no.5, eloped with her on 4.3.2009, and the two married on 5.3.2009 at village Gonda, district Gonda, Uttar Pradesh. It is further alleged in the writ petition that after their marriage the - 2 - petitioner learnt that respondent no.4 has lodged an F.I.R. (Annexure 3) against the petitioner and two others for abducting their daughter, respondent no.5. Respondent no.4 has placed on record his counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the parties are agnates, and are within the prohibited degree of relationship within the meaning of sub-section (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1958. Secondly, respondent no.5 had been abducted, the petitioner and respondent no.5 could never marry because of the resistance of respondent no.4, and the petitioner ultimately appeared in court on account of the criminal case started against him. Respondent nos.4 to 6 have also produced before us a copy of the charge-sheet submitted against the petitioner and two others in connection with the criminal case lodged for abduction of respondent no.5 under sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code. 3. We have interviewed the petitioner, his father, respondent nos. 4, 5, and 6 separately in chambers. We may briefly summarise the statements made by them before us in camera. The petitioner says that he and respondent nos. 4 to 6 are closely related and are agnates. He also submits that the two families live in different portions of the same house at their village. He had, therefore, come in close contact with respondent no.5 and the two had eloped and ultimately married on 5.3.2009. He also submits that he is not educated and has not even passed Matriculation. The petitioner’s father has stated that the parties are agnates, are closely related, and live in different portions of the same house - 3 - which they have jointly inherited from their forefathers. Respondent no.4 has stated that the parties are close agnates, and share different portions of the same house. The two agnates are at loggerheads for a long time. The girl was abducted but the marriage had never taken place. Respondent no.5 has stated that the parties are agnates, and are closely related. The petitioner’s father and respondent no.4 live in different portions of the same house which they have jointly inherited. She disowns any love affair with the petitioner and has stated that she is pursuing graduation course and is interested in completing her education. She was forcibly abducted and taken elsewhere but no marriage has taken place. She is mindful of the position that the parties are agnates and are closely related and, therefore, there is no question of marriage between herself and the petitioner. Respondent no.6 has stated that she and respondent no.5 were moving together on Jadua over-bridge to catch the train. She was a few steps ahead while respondent no.5 was lagging behind, and she (respondent no.5) was forcibly abducted in her presence and full knowledge of the petitioner along with two others. She learnt from her daughter that marriage had not taken place between the petitioner and respondent no.5. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The admitted position between the parties is that they are agnates and closely related to each other. The genealogy as stated by respondent - 4 - nos. 4 to 6 in their counter affidavit is reproduced hereinbelow :- lwpd ,oa vfHk;qDrksa dk oa'kkoyh oa'kkoyh jketh egrks ¼Hkxr½ xzke&dqrqciqj lSniqj Vksyks n ?kjk Fkkuk & fonqiqj ftyk oS'kkyh ,oa vU; fnu n;ky Hkxr ,oa ohjk Hkxr [kqj[kqj Hkxr mQZ foyVw Hkxr yeu Hkxr fyrq Hkxr laryky Hkxr mQZ jkefoykl Hkxr lwpd gjnaxh Hkxr foykl Hkxr Jherh jk/kk nsoh iRuh ljLorh dqekjh iq=h vig`rk misUnz Hkxr vigj.kdrkZ lR;sUnz Hkxr f'kosUnz Hkxr vigj.kdrkZ lqfe=k nsoh yM+dh ifr egsUnz iks0 vigj.kdrkZ 5. The petitioner has accepted the validity of the genealogy. It is evident that the parties are agnates, closely related and within the prohibited degree of relationship within the meaning of sub-sections (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that view of the matter, it appears that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.5 is impermissible as per the provisions of the Act. Apart from the position that such a marriage is void within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act, it has also been made punishable with imprisonment and fine. We also cannot ignore the statements made by respondent no.5 before us in camera that she was abducted - 5 - forcibly by the petitioner and two others, and no marriage has taken place between the two. He had brought respondent no.5 to the village because of the fear caused by the F.I.R. against him and two others. She has also stated before us that in view of the position that no marriage has taken place, there is no question of her going with the petitioner. She is in the lawful custody of her parents (respondent nos. 4 and 6) who have produced her in court and, therefore, may be permitted to return with them. We also note that the petitioner has already been charge-sheeted in the criminal case against him. 6. In the result, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur, who shall ensure speedy trial of the same. ( S K Katriar ) ( Jyoti Saran ) mrl