High Courts(2008) 01 AHC CK 0183

Mohit Khare and another vs State of U.P.and Ors.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 9 January 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Barkat Ali Zaidi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 1373 of 2008

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 357 words

Barkat Ali Zaidi, J.

1.

I have heard Sri A. Kumar Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioners and Sri Rama Shanker Bind, Addl. Government Advocate for the State.

2.

This petition of Habeas Corpus was filed by a young husband Mohit Khare, alleging that his wife Sakchhi Khare has been illegally detained by his father Opposite Party No. 2 and he should be directed to produce her in Court and she be allowed to live with him. However, the wife also appeared with the husband in Court and technically speaking, therefore, Habeas Corpus Petition became infructuous.

3.

However, since a dispute has come before the Court, it is appropriate that it should not be allowed to continue, and should be resolved, because Dispute Resolution is the essential function of a Court.

4.

No notice has yet been issued to the respondents, and since the wife has turned up, alongwith the petitioner No. 1, there seems no need for issuance of notice.

5.

The photo stat copy of the High School certificate of the wife Sakchhi Khare is on record which shows her date of birth as 10.2.1984. A marriage certificate of Arya Samaj Krishna Nagar, Prayag Allahabad has also been filed which is dated 14.12.2007. On the date of marriage, she was 23 years of age, consequently, a major and had a right to marry according to her choice. The marriage is, therefore, prima facie valid and she (petitioner No. 2) has a righl to live with her husband (petitioner No. 1), if she so desires. She has stated ir> Court before us that she wants to live with her husband while his father, Opposite Party No. 2 is trying to create obstructions and impediments,

6.

In the circumstances, the father should be restrained from interfering in their married life,

ORDER

Opposite Party No. 1 father Ram Naresh Singh of Smt, Sakchhi Khare is directed not to obstruct or hinder the life of Smt. Sakchhi Khare in living with her husband Mohit Khare. If the father raises any hassles, a first information report may be lodged against him and the police will grant appropriate protection to the couple.