High CourtsDivision Bench(2010) 10 UK CK 0034

Smt. Tulsi @ Shaeen vs State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 20 October 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Prafulla C. Pant, J · Nirmal Yadav, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Habeas Corpus Petition No. 28 of 2010

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 · 281 words

Prafulla C. Pant, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2.

The writ Petitioner is produced before this Court by Respondent No. 3 Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Haldwani.

3.

Learned Counsel for the writ Petitioner pleaded that that the writ Petitioner got married to Rafiq Ahmad on her own volition, and she is illegally detained in the custody of the Superintendent of Nari Niketan, Haldwani.

4.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for mother of the writ Petitioner contended that the writ Petitioner is a minor girl of 16 years, and a first information report has been lodged against Rafiq Ahmad, relating to her kidnapping.

5.

From appearance the girl looks minor.

6.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 stating that no proof of solemnization of marriage was produced before him when he passed the order directing the writ Petitioner to be given in the custody of the Superintendent of Nari Niketan.

7.

Learned Counsel for mother of the writ Petitioner further pointed out that the Nikahnama (copy of which is annexed as Annexure - 1 to the writ petition) itself shows that the girl is shown to be daughter of one Munawar, while the name of father of the writ Petitioner is Surendra Saxena/Bhatnagar. (The girl admitted that her father�s name is Surendra Saxena/Bhatnagar).

8.

Copy of the first information report No. 494 of 2010, lodged at police station Kashipur, shows that mother of the writ Petitioner has complained that her minor daughter, aged 16 years, has been kidnapped by Rafiq Ahmad and others.

9.

In the above circumstances, we are not inclined to grant relief sought by the writ Petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed.