- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan, J. This habeas corpus petition was posted for being considered today. The prrceedings are two parts. The first part relates to the mystery of one Ranjan Srivastava and Mr. S. Singh, Advocate, who arranged the riling of the petition by appending an affidavit to the habeas corpus petition. Neither Ranjan Srivastava nor Mr. S. Singh, Advocate have made themselves available at the Bar of this Court in any proceedings. This enquiry shall continue. Amrit Lal, the Oath Commissioner otherwise an Advocate has been traced and has appeared at the Bar and made a statement that he had affirmed an affidavit of Ranjan Srivastava which is appended to the petition.
(2.) THE second aspect is the allegation of illegal detention of Dr. Roopam by her parents. Since the habeas corpus petition was filed, Dr. Roopam and her finance Dr. Promod Kumar Agrihari applied to the Marriage Officer under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 expressing their intention to marry. THE marriage certificate was blocked. THEreafter they married at the Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur on March 3, 1989. Both Dr. Roopam and her hubband Dr. Promod Kumar had other wise applied before the Marriage Officer, Gorakhpur by application No. 213 of 1989 expressing their intention to marry by giving notice under the Special Marriages Act, 1954. 'they never received the marriage certificate as there was an objection by the parents of Dr. Roopam to the marriage. The objection of the parents to the marriage, is otherwise is on record of this habeas corpus petition. That the parents may object is their right of dissent upon which this Court shall make no comment as marriage of sons and daughters otherwise adult may be with consent of parents and may be in defiance of their wishes. At one stage the Court ceases to interfere into this business and that is when children become adults, it is then their right to privacy.
(3.) THE only relevant aspect that the Court has to see is that the parents had placed it on record in their objection that they have not given permission to their daughter to marry Dr. Promod Kumar Agrahari on the ground that they had made arrangements to marry their daughter to another person. This objection is on record. Thus, this Court cannot help not notice it. There was no objection on the ground that their daughter Dr. Roopam was already married. This can be a valid ground to object when the law prescribes filing of notice of an intention to marry under the Special Marriages Act, 1954. Dr. Roopam is now married with Dr. Promod Kumar Agrahari. The parents know of this fact. No person or authority can break this bond unless the two break it themselves, of course, in accordance with law. That the parents may not have reconciled to this marriage is another aspect of the matter and the bruises between parents and their daughter only time will heal.;