- (1.) S. K. Mookerji, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
(2.) THIS petition has been filed on behalf of Jasprit Kaur by one Mukul Shiksharthi, alleging himself to be the husband, challenging the alleged illegal detention of Jasprit Kaur by her parents. THIS Court on 14-4- 1988 issued notice to Sardar Har Saran Singh, respondent No. 2, father of Jasprit Kaur. Counter and rejoinder-affidavit have been exchanged. A supple mentary affidavit and certified copy of the statement of Jasprit Kaur, recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. have also been filed. In this case, Mukul Shiksharthi, hereinafter referred to as Mukul, has filed affidavit in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. In the petition it has been averred that Jasprit Kaur was born on 25-2-1970. This averment has been supported by the record of the institution where she was studying. A medical certificate has also been filed which is Annexure-9 to the petition, which clearly indicates her age as 17 years. However, the age has been disputed in the counter affidavit and she has been described as a minor and in support of the age, respondent no. 2, who is the father of Jasprit Kaur has also filed medical certificate of private doctor. It is admitted case that against Mukul a criminal complaint is pending with the Police Station Dhoomanganj, Allahabad under Section 363/366/376/506, I. P. C. Regarding the marriage there is a bald allegation in the petition that she was married with Mukul. A supplementary affidavit has been filed by one Shastri Laxman Das, aged about 33 years. In this affidavit it is stated that the marriage of Mukul with Jasprit Kaur has taken place according to Hindu rites and rituals. In fact, no reply has been filed to this affidavit, but the learned counsel for the respondents has sub mitted that no reliance can be placed on this affidavit. It is wholly unreliable. The argument in short, is that the factum of marriage and necessary ingredients of a Hindu marriage have not been given in detail in this affidavit. Hindu marriage in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals include various steps to perform a valid marriage. There are separate technicalities, including Kanya Dan also in performing a marriage besides Saptapadi. There may be other forms of valid marriage but each has its own formalities. In this case the petitioner has chosen to give no details regarding the form of marriage. Thus, prime, fads, the alleged marriage is not accepted in the present petition. 1 am inclined to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents in respect of the marriage in this case, in view of the facts and circumstances brought to my notice in this particular case. Another point against the petitioner is that there is no averments in the entire petition to show that Mukul was instructed by Jasprit Kaur to file this Habeas Corpus Petition. The certified copy of the statement recorded under Section 164, Cr. P. C. has also been filed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the materials on record. I am not satisfied, on the base of the evidence on record, in this particular case, that any marriage had taken place between Mukul and Jasprit Kaur. However, I am satisfied that there is no evidence on record to show that Mukul was ever instructed to file this Habeas Corpus Petition by Jasprit Kaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the stage of argument prayed that he can file an affidavit to show that Mukul was permitted by Jasprit Kaur to file the present Harbeas Corpus Petition. This prayer, at this late stage of the case, is not acceptable and is rejected. It appears that a criminal case is also pending investigation against Mukul and for this reason also I am not inclined to issue a writ of habeas Corpus at this stage. It shall be, however , open for Mukul to seek his remedy in the Courts below and any observation made in this judgment shall not in any manner prejudice the case of either parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner also made effort today to file several other affidavits in support of the marriage of Jasprit Kaur with Mulul. These affidavits are not accepted, and the prayer is rejected.
(3.) IN the result, this Harbeas Corpus Petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed with costs on the parties. Notice issued on 14/4/1988 by this Court is hereby discharged. Petition dismissed. .;