53 ^•^?^r&. I ^fF' ^^^ssaS'&^. ! wr^.£a a»?s si'ga^. a s g^"i^.6^.P'a.S-^ aESi HON'BLE -SHRi S.R. NAYAK, CJ. HON'BLE SHR! D.R. DESHiVIUKH, J. WRJTPETmQN.NO,3.980F_200( Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/o. Shri Chandulal Yadav, aged about 24 years, R/o. Near Kamal Beatle Shop, Katora Taiab, RaipurC.G.) Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through : the Secretaiy, Horne Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Senior Superintendent of Po!ice, District Raipur, Raipur (C.G.) 3. State House Officer, P.S. Civil Lines, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Mahesh Kumar Rohiia, S/o. Shri ihagvi/andas aged about 50 years, R/o. Sindhi Colony, Katora Talab, Raipur (C.G.) Present: Shri Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pramod Verma, iearned Addi. A.G. for the State/ respondents 1 to 3. Shri Bhishma Kinger, learned counsel for respondentNo..4. Oral Ord' [7"' February; The following order of the Court was passed by S.R.Nayak, CJ. This writ petition is fi!ed by one Santosh Kumar Yadav, S/'o. Shri Chandula! Yadav, resident of Kamal Beatle Shop, Katora'Talab, Raipur. !t is averred that he married Ms. Priti Rohila, D/o. Shri Mahesh Kumar Rohila, who is S/o. Shri Bhagawandas, the 4 respondent herein on .-^-" -"~^i ^press pi'ou .:'srTi=t:i3b3fxDn''' ":om ^iareNo.rOn-^s.: info@desmat.com 91 9 •V. '' f"'.%; :a<t,^< ^ss^s^s^^^^^g^a^^s& 54 1-- 12.10.2005 in Arya Samaj K4andir, Marhi Mata Nagar, Jai! Road, Raipur and they were staying together. (2) After the marriage, it Is averred, in the night of 12.10.2005, Po!ice of Civll Lines ca!led the petitioner alonawith his wife and he was kept in Pol'ce Statio", Civil Lines and his wife Smt. Priti was kept In Mahiia Thana, Raipur on the night of 12,10.2005. !n the evening of 13.10.2005, the petitioner was released from Police Station, Civi! Lines and he was to!d by one Mr. Nagwanshi, who was posted as Sub-inspector that his wife v/as taken away by her father. in the circumstance, on 14.10.2005 the etitioner lodged a compiiant with the Police Station, Civil Lines, Raipur and ths 3 rsspondsnt-Station House Offscsr dld not take any action. So alleging, this Habeas Corpus writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking inter/ention of the Court. Having entertained the writ pstiSion on 24.01.2006, by our order dated 31.01 .2006, we directed the 4th respondent to produce the detenue Ms. Priti today before the Court. We a!so directed the petitioner to be present in person at 10.30 a.m. today. (3) Ws have heard the petitioner and Ms. Priti as vreil as 4 respondent and their counse!. When we examined Ms. Priti in open Court, she to!d us that she on her own and out of her voiition and free-will has been staylng with the 4 respondent. Nevertheless, in our anxiety that the !iberty of Ms. Priti should not be v'olated or curtailed, conducted hearing in camera. At the time of hearing i" camera, both Ms. Priti and the petitioner were present. In camera hearing also, Ms. Priti told us that she wouid iike to stay v.'ith her father, the 4 respondent and she is not wiHlng to go with the petitioner. We are satisfied that Ms. Pritl is maturec enough to decide the liberty granted fo her under the Constitution. Since she has specifica!!y told us that she has been staying with her parents out •sie'ae^ •:/t ai^ ._1SS» s? ^.PJS'SS' ps': g.i'sn-i^lsbsixDET- l^ 3, 55 of her volition and free-will and she has no mind to go with the petitioner, we cannot direct Ms. Priti to join the petitioner against her wil!. (4) In that view of the matter, no further steps need be taken ind according!y, this writ petition Js disposed of. However, we make it clear that this order shal! not come in the way of the petitione.r working out his remedies available to him in matrimonia! law, if he is so advised. No costs. Sd/- Sd/- Hon'ble the Chief Justice Di"^os^^ JuclgeDeshmukh ^^