1 cri-wp-1538-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1538 OF 2010 Pradeep Sopan Phadthare .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Maharashtra and anr. .. Respondents Mr. S.J. Shelke for petitioner. Mrs.P.P. Shinde, APP for State. Mr. V.V. Purwant for respondent no.2. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. August 05, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner is seeking a writ of habeas corpus so as to seek the custody of Mrs. Sudha daughter of Dattatray Ghorpade on the ground that she is his legally wedded wife and as per him the marriage was performed on 20/7/2009 in Lord Shiva Temple at Pune as per the Hindu 2 cri-wp-1538-10 vedic rituals. However, respondent no.2 – the father of Sudha was against this marriage and, therefore, he filed a complaint with the Bhoiwada Police Station on 30/6/2009 (FIR No. 182/09) for the offences punishable under Section 363, 366, 368 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioner and his family members and during the course of investigation, the petitioner’s brother Dayanand and cousin Mrs. Minakshi Phadthare were arrested, but were released on bail by the Sessions Court. On 10/11/2009 the wife of respondent no.2 filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 2944 of 2009 which was disposed by this court on 8/2/2010 and by noting that Sudha was lodged in Deonar Childrens’ Home as she was a minor and was directed to be produced before Child Welfare Committee on 15/2/2010. 3. There was no dispute that Sudha is born on 4/5/1992 and on the date of the alleged marriage she was less than 18 years of age. As directed by us, both the petitioner and Sudha reamined present before us today and we talked to them in-camera. Though Sudha admitted to have stayed with the petitioner for few months, she denied that she is a legally wedded wife of the petitioner. She also stated that on 29/5/2010 she was already married to someone else and she is a legally wedded wife of a man who is not before us. She emphatically stated that she had no intention to 3 cri-wp-1538-10 marry the petitioner at any time and after marriage on 29/5/2010, she has settled happily. On 29/5/2010 Sudha had completed the age of 18 years. 4. The petitioner fairly stated before us that if Sudha is married on 29/5/2010 to someone else, he does not wish to disturb her matrimonial life and would not press for a writ of habeas corpus so as to direct her to join his company. All that he requested was that respondent no.2 be directed to withdraw the complaint he has filed with the Bhoiwada Police Station against the petitioner and his family members. Mr. Purwant, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2, has assured us that the said complaint will be withdrawn and there will not be any harm, harassment or any act causing fear or insecurity by respondent no.2 or any of his family members, to the petitioner or his family members. We have noted down the said undertaking. 5. Hence, nothing further survives in this petition and the same is dismissed as such. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)