IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. W.P. No.2099 of 2010 Date of Decision:30.11.2010 Sher Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. Sunil Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Paul, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Anmol Partap Singh Mann, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate for the alleged detenue-Sandeep Kaur. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Heabus Corpus for the release of detenue namely Sandeep Kaur d/o Sawarn Singh resident of Strada Sedazzara No.16-29012-Caorso (PC), Italy, presently residing at Samana Kalan, tehsil Chamkaur Shahib, District Ropar from the illegal custody of respondent No.4. Notice of motion was issued on 15.11.2010 and respondent No.4 was directed to be present in the Court alongwith alleged detenue Sandeep Kaur d/o Sawarn Singh. Today, Sandeep Kaur is present in the Court alongwith her grand-mother. Her statement has been recorded. As per her statement, she managed to escape from the custody of respondent No.4 and is presently residing with the petitioner, who is her grand-mother. She has further stated Crl. W.P. No.2099 of 2010 -2- that she wishes to live with her and does not wish to live with respondent No.4. She also stated that she may be allowed to go with the petitioner, who is her grand-mother. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 states that he may be allowed to file reply to contest this petition as Sandeep Kaur is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4. The present petition is only Heabus Corpus. The detenue being a major has the right to exercise her option with whom she wants to stay. In view of her statement, she is allowed to accompany the petitioner. No further order is called for. However, in case respondent No.4 is aggrieved, he is always at liberty to seek the redressal of his grievance by availing of alternative remedy in accordance with law. Disposed of. 30.11.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE