1 324411 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY vgm CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 3244 OF 2011 Raj Chandrakant Kadam ...Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Bagade for the Petitioner Mr. P.A. Pol, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. S.V. Marwadi for Respondent No. 3 The petitioner with his father and sister present Respondent No. 3 with his daughter present CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND R.G. KETKAR, JJ DATE: NOVEMBER 25, 2011 (In Chambers) P.C.:- The principal relief claimed in this petition is to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce Mrs. Kanchan Raj Kadam, wife of the petitioner, whom, it is alleged, her father has kept in illegal detention at his residence. Respondent No. 3 has 2 324411 appeared before the Court. Mrs. Kanchan Raj Kadam is accompanying him. 2. Considering the nature of dispute, we thought it appropriate to interview the girl in chambers, as requested by the counsel for the parties. Accordingly, the matter was taken up in chambers after the court-hours. 3. We have interviewed Kanchan as well as her father separately. For reasons best known to them, Kanchan is unwilling to go back to her matrimonial house. She fairly conceded that she got married to the petitioner on 26th July, 2011, and has consummated her marriage while she stayed with the petitioner for almost two months. But, she states that, because of differences between them, she had to take the hard decision of removing herself from the matrimonial house and go back to her father. She did mention the reasons to us as to why she took such a drastic step. Almost same reasons were mentioned by her father, respondent No. 3, to us. 4. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 has prevailed upon Kanchan to take this extreme position to save the marriage 3 324411 proposal of his elder daughter, which was not fructifying, as Kanchan was married outside their community. 5. This being Habeas Corpus Petition, it is not necessary for us to go into the correctness of the rival claims. The only question is: Whether the said Kanchan has been illegally detained by her father, respondent No. 3? It is not possible to take that view on the basis of interview with the girl, who is fully grown-up and matured. 6. Respondent No. 3 has filed reply-affidavit. In the context of the facts mentioned therein, the counsel for the petitioner was at pains to persuade us to give some time to bring on record crucial aspects of the matter, including the fact that the contents of the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 are false to the knowledge of respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 filed misleading proceedings on the basis of false statement made therein before the Rajasthan Court, stating that Kanchan was minor, and, for which reason, prayed for her custody. In other words, respondent No. 3 misled the Court of competent jurisdiction at Rajasthan to pass order of custody under Section 97 of the Code. As aforesaid, the principal relief claimed in this petition is of habeas corpus. All other disputes between 4 324411 the parties are irrelevant for the purpose of these proceedings. We would not venture into those details, and for which reason, it is unnecessary to defer the hearing of this petition to enable the petitioner to file rejoinder-affidavit. 7. Indeed, the petitioner will be free to pursue such other remedies as may be permissible to him in law either for criminal action or civil action against respondent No. 3 or his legally-wedded wife, Kanchan Raj Kadam, as may be advised. Those proceedings will have to be decided on their own merits in accordance with law. 8. We are conscious of the fact that the petitioner has asked for further relief in terms of prayer clause (b). However, in view of the opinion recorded for the purpose of these proceedings after interviewing Kanchan, it is not possible to hold that she has been illegally detained by respondent No. 3. She is staying with respondent No. 3, her father, on her own volition and not under coercion or pressure, as is stated by her before us. Whether the stand taken by Kanchan and her father is correct or otherwise, is a matter which will have to be decided in some other proceedings, but, going by her wishes expressed by her during the interview, we cannot issue further direction either to respondent No. 3 5 324411 or, for that matter, to Kanchan to resume cohabitation with the petitioner. The petitioner may have to pursue appropriate proceedings as may be advised, where all the contentious issues can be examined in detail and on merits. 9. We, once again, make it clear that any observation made in this order will not come in the way of either party in any of the proceedings to be initiated by them or to defend the proceedings instituted against them. All questions on merits of the rival claims are left open. 10. Petition is disposed of accordingly. R.G. KETKAR, J. A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.