MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the petitioner Prashant Sharma who claimed to be the husband of the alleged detenue Sakshi D/o Shri Hari Shanker Vyas - respondent No. 4.
(2.) CONSIDERING our view taken earlier in the case of Suresh Kumar Yadav vs. Chiranjilal Yadav, reported in 1996 (3) WLC 303, we thought it appropriate to issue show cause notice to the respondents including the parents provided the so called husband/petitioner herein deposits Rs. 5,000/- by way of cost as we considered appropriate that a detenue, who is claimed to be the wife by the petitioner and is alleged to be in the illegal detention of her parents, should normally not be summoned to the court unnecessarily jeopardising her reputation including that of her parents when the hidden motive of the petitioner more often than not, is pressurise the alleged detenue for obtaining her consent to agree to the marriage in which the petitioner alone is interested. In order to appreciate the controversy, it may be essential to state the relevant details which indicate that the petitioner Prashant Sharma alleged that the so called wife Sakshi was in illegal detention of her father Shri Hari Shanker Vyas as although she is his legally wedded wife, she is not allowed to join and live with her husband-petitioner Prashant Sharma. As already indicated hereinbefore, we directed the petitioner to deposit as sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of this litigation for the parents and the alleged detenue considering the fact that many a times, a girl although may be major also requires protection since cases are not wanting where the parents also pressurise the girl from acting against her wishes though she is a major. Therefore, to strike a balance between the two contradictory situations referred to hereinbefore, we although thought it appropriate to issue show cause notices to the respondents including the parents, we had directed the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards cost which he duly complied and thereafter notices were issued to the respondents. The respondent No. 4- father of the alleged detenue, on his own, appeared through his advocate by filing Caveat. Thereafter, the alleged detenu Sakshi also appeared in this Court on 22. 2. 2006 wherein we recorded that we have talked to the alleged detenu and ascertained her wishes. Thereafter, it was ordered that the order shall be passed tomorrow in the open Court. Accordingly, when the matter was listed on 23. 2. 2006, the petitioner alleged that the girl, who was produced before the Court in Chambers, was not even seen by him and he alleged that some other girl might have been produced before the Court in Chambers. It was requested that the girl should be summoned again before the Court so that her identity may be ascertained and her intention also be enquired as to whether she is living willingly with her father or she wants to join petitioner Prashant Sharma. In fact the allegation that some other girl was produced before the Court was quite startling for the Court to accept and, therefore, to verify the correctness of the allegation, we directed the respondent No. 4 to remain present along with his daughter-the alleged detenu Sakshi. Therefore, the matter was listed again today on 28. 2. 2006 and the alleged detenue Sakshi, along with her father as also the petitioner Prashant Sharma along with his advocate, appeared before us in Chambers. At that stage, the petitioner certified that this is the girl who is the detenu and is his wife. We noticed that the petitioner has gone to the extent of levelling unfounded allegations without ascertaining the correct fact that detenu, who was examined by us on the earlier date, was not girl who in fact is the detenu and he had even gone to the extent of showing the photographs. On the contrary, when we saw the photographs, it appeared that the girl who he asserts to have married, does not even bear apparent identity with the girl who was produced before us. But considering his assertion that the girl who appeared before us is his wife, we enquired about her wishes whether she is pressurised to live with her father or she is married with the petitioner Prashant Sharma. She unambiguously stated that she has never married Prashant Sharma and in fact Prashant Sharma has been terrorising her to marry him and had come to the Court with a large number of his relatives which created security problem also for the girl. It has been the common practice time and again witnessed by the Court that the petitioner filing habeas corpus petition attempts to create havoc to exert moral pressure on the alleged wife to join the petitioner-husband by using the habeas corpus petition as a tool to fulfill his desire to marry the girl who refuses to give her consent and many a times security hazards have been created in the court premises while taking up habeas corpus petitions, which is strongly deprecated as we sincerely feel that a girl, specially who is a major, cannot be treated as a commodity or a chatter so as to pressurise her and snatch her away from the custody of her father who may be expected to succumb to save his honour in the society taking shelter of the Court. It hardly needs to be emphasized that it is essentially her own wish which should be allowed to prevail as to where she wants to live once she is a major.
(3.) EXAMINING the wishes of the detenue in the light of this view, we talked to the girl and she stated in unequivocal terms that she is living willingly with her father and she does not know the petitioner nor she is the person in the photographs. Be that as it may, once she has expressed her wishes that she is not under illegal detention of her father and is living willingly with him and that she does not even know the petitioner, there is no scope left for entertaining this petition as it hardly needs to be emphasised that a petition for habeas corpus is fit to be entertained only if the person is prima facie proved to be in illegal detention. We, therefore, close by repeating our observation given out earlier that the petitioner, who approaches the Court by filing a habeas corpus petition, must approach the Court with clean hands and should not use the court as a forum to exert moral pressure on the girl even if she changes her mind and wants to live with her father resiling away from the alleged marriage which she had entered into without much thought and consideration. We go to the extent of observing that even if she had voluntarily married the person concerned but thereafter refuses to live with him, the remedy obviously cannot be by filing a habeas corpus petition as the remedy lies by initiating matrimonial proceeding before the Family Court. The scope and ambit of the habeas corpus petition is limited to the extent where illegal detention of any person at least is prima facie proved so that he can be directed to be produced and protected and, therefore, we had given enough warning to the petitioner's counsel that he should not pressurise the girl to come before this Court unnecessarily putting the family into disrepute by filing such petitions. It is not hard to realise that when a family, along with the daughter, is dragged to the Court for realising a hidden motive, it obviously creates unnecessary attention and glare, which psychologically demoralises the girl pressurising her into unnecessary predicament, who is alleged to be under detention. We, therefore, condemn the action the behaviour of the petitioner who has filed this petition recklessly without ascertaining the wishes of the girl and hence dismiss this petition with cost since the petitioner was clearly made aware in advance that he should not unnecessarily drag the girl to the Court and should try to ascertain her wishes in advance and hence he should have thought of the repercussions. But, it appears that he has deliberately used the tactics of filing a habeas corpus petition although he already was aware that the girl was not moving out of her father's house willing. It may be that the alleged detenue might have married the petitioner of which also we are not sure, but even if it be correct, he has certainly no reason to file a habeas corpus petition as we have already stated that he should have moved the Family Court for settling such dispute. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to dismiss this petition awarding cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the detenue which has to be deposited in this Court. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- more within a period of one week from today as the order is passed in his presence and father such deposit, the Registry is directed to pay the cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the detenue- Ms. Sakshi S/o Shri Hari Shanker Vyas. . ;