1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 542 OF 2011 Pankaj Shantilal Jain, age 30 years, occupation: service, r/o Demla Colony, Arihant Apt. New Narvekar Building, at Jalgaon, Taluka and Dist.Jalgaon Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. The District Superintendent of Police, D.S.P Office, Jalgaon. 3. Police Inspector, Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon. 4. Sushila w/o Motilal Wankhede, age 50 years, occup. service. r/of Ramkrushna Apartment, Nandanvan Colony, Khwaja Miya Road, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 5. Deepak Motilal Wankhede, age 24 years, occup.education, r/of Ramkrushna Apartment, Nandanvan Colony, Khwaja Miya Road, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 2 6. Sanjay Agrawal, age 45 years, occup. self employed, r/of Ramkrushna Apartment, Nandanvan Colony, Khwaja Miya Road, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 7. Meena Sanjay Agrawal, age 40 years, occupation: House hold, r/of Ramkrushna Apartment, Nandanvan Colony, Khwaja Miya Road, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. 8. Jayashree Pankaj Jain, age 24years, occupation: House hold, r/of Ramkrushna Apartment, Nandanvan Colony, Khwaja Miya Road, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon. --------- Shri Kedar P. Chaware, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri N.R. Shaikh, APP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for Respondent No. 8 ---------- Coram : A.H. Joshi and A.R. Joshi, JJ. Date : 09.09.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: A.H. Joshi, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and is heard by consent. 2. This is a petition for Habeas corpus. 3 3. Respondent No. 8 Jayashree has appeared in person, along with Advocate Shri Vijay Sharam. 4. She has filed affidavit opposing the petition, stating that the marriage relied upon by the petitioner was not out of her free will etc. 5. We had interviewed the Respondent No. 8 in the open court. The Respondent No.8 has, in very clear words, stated that she is staying with her mother, entirely at her own will and without anybody's pressure. 6. We had offered the learned Advocate Mr. Chaware for the petitioner that he may ask questions to Respondent No.8, if he desires. Learned Advocate states that he has keenly listened the questions put by the court to Respondent No.8 and answers given by her, and that he has no questions to be put to her. 7. The petition has served its purpose. No further orders are, therefore, necessary in this petition. 8 Hence, the petition is disposed of, accordingly. Rule is discharged. (A.R.Joshi, J.) (A.H. Joshi, J.) pnd/criwp-542.11