Full Text
Translation output
$- 16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI w.P.(cRL) r204l20rr
SATANJIB PATHAK ..... Petitioner !
Through Mr Ravi Kumar Tomar with Mr Budhimati
Jha. Advocates
SATANJIB PATHAK ..... Petitioner !
Through Mr Ravi Kumar Tomar with Mr Budhimati
Jha. Advocates
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS ""' Respondent
CORAM:
Throu8h Mr Pawan Sharma, St. Counsel for State.
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
26.09.201.1 The petitioner had approached this court inasmuch as, according to him, his daughter Pallavi had been missing and was allegedly in the custody of respondent no.4 and his family members. Pursuant to issuance of notice, Pallavi had been produced before us on the previous date and the respondent no.4 had also appeared before us. We had an interaction with them in chambers as well as with the petitioner and his wife. As per the documents on record, it appears that Pallavi entered into matrimony with the respondent no.4 Aakash Tonk on 27.05.2011.
The said mar:riage was registered under. the I-Iindu Malriage Act, 1956 on
04.06.2011 before the Registrar of Hindu Maniages, Ghaziabad, U.P. According to the petitioner, his daughter Pallavi has not attained 18 years of age and her date of birth is 02.03.1995, which is also appearing in the CBSE provisional certificate, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P-l to the petition. However, oh l
2011:DHC:18149-DB q I according to Pallavi she is over 18 years of age and she has further stated that her actual date of birth is 02.03.1993, which would make her more than 18 years of age. Anyhow, without going into the controversy of how old the petitioner's daughter Pallavi is, this much is clear that she had left her parents home of her own accord and that she had voluntarily entered into matrimony with the respondent no.4 (Aakash Tonk).
Pallavi had earlier been sent by the Child Welfare Committee to Nirmal
Chaya on 09.06.2011 and on 17.06.2011 the said Child Welfare Committee had directed that the custody of Pallavi be handed over to the petitioner. On
12.07.2011, the Child Welfare Committee closed the case of the petitioner after handing over the custody of Pallavi to the petitioner. It is thereafter that Pallavi once again |eft her parents home and joined the company of the respondent no.4.
These events as also discussions with Pallavi indicate that she had left of her own accord and had got married to the respondent no'4 out of her own wish.
On the previous date, it was indicated by the parties that Pallavi would now reside with her parents till she attains the age of 18 years, as per the claim of the parents. Pallavi had agreed to this so also as the respondent no.4 Aakash Tonk and he had also left Pallavi at the chamber of the learned counsel for the petitioner as promised by him. Today, Pallavi has come to court along with her parents from her parental home. Respondent no.4 Aakash Tonk is also present before us.
We have once again enquired from Pallavi as to where she wants to reside and she has indicated that she would presently reside with her parents and would
I
,-i ' l' L take a decision when she attains the age of 18, as claimed by her parents.
Althougli she maintains that she is over 18 even today, but for the wishes of her parents, she states that she would take a decision once she attains the age of 18, as claimed by her parents, which would be on 02.03.2013. She will continue her education while in the custody of her parents and the parents have also indicated and undertaken that they shall not take their daughter Pallavi outside Delhi till
02.03.2013 when Pallavi would be free to take any decision with regard to where she would reside. They have also undertaken that they will not take any step to disturb the status of Pallavi and the respondent no.4 till 02.03.2013, when, Pallavi alone would take that decision. The petitioner and his wife have agreed that they will not create any hindrance to the respondent no.4 visiting and meeting Pallavi once in every 15 days at Pallavi's residence nor will they prevent Pallavi from talking to the respondent no.4 over the telephone.
In view of the position indicated above, the petitioners as well as Pallavi have stated that they shall cooperate in quashing of the FIR No.150l20ll, registered at Police Station Sagarpur. The petitioner and his wife shall be bound by the undertakings mentioned above. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid te'rns.
,/'/'/q - BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J I l,/1 /r-r^-P
VEENAU'ffi;;
;
SEPTEMBER 26, 20L1 srb
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
26.09.201.1 The petitioner had approached this court inasmuch as, according to him, his daughter Pallavi had been missing and was allegedly in the custody of respondent no.4 and his family members. Pursuant to issuance of notice, Pallavi had been produced before us on the previous date and the respondent no.4 had also appeared before us. We had an interaction with them in chambers as well as with the petitioner and his wife. As per the documents on record, it appears that Pallavi entered into matrimony with the respondent no.4 Aakash Tonk on 27.05.2011.
The said mar:riage was registered under. the I-Iindu Malriage Act, 1956 on
04.06.2011 before the Registrar of Hindu Maniages, Ghaziabad, U.P. According to the petitioner, his daughter Pallavi has not attained 18 years of age and her date of birth is 02.03.1995, which is also appearing in the CBSE provisional certificate, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure P-l to the petition. However, oh l
2011:DHC:18149-DB q I according to Pallavi she is over 18 years of age and she has further stated that her actual date of birth is 02.03.1993, which would make her more than 18 years of age. Anyhow, without going into the controversy of how old the petitioner's daughter Pallavi is, this much is clear that she had left her parents home of her own accord and that she had voluntarily entered into matrimony with the respondent no.4 (Aakash Tonk).
Pallavi had earlier been sent by the Child Welfare Committee to Nirmal
Chaya on 09.06.2011 and on 17.06.2011 the said Child Welfare Committee had directed that the custody of Pallavi be handed over to the petitioner. On
12.07.2011, the Child Welfare Committee closed the case of the petitioner after handing over the custody of Pallavi to the petitioner. It is thereafter that Pallavi once again |eft her parents home and joined the company of the respondent no.4.
These events as also discussions with Pallavi indicate that she had left of her own accord and had got married to the respondent no'4 out of her own wish.
On the previous date, it was indicated by the parties that Pallavi would now reside with her parents till she attains the age of 18 years, as per the claim of the parents. Pallavi had agreed to this so also as the respondent no.4 Aakash Tonk and he had also left Pallavi at the chamber of the learned counsel for the petitioner as promised by him. Today, Pallavi has come to court along with her parents from her parental home. Respondent no.4 Aakash Tonk is also present before us.
We have once again enquired from Pallavi as to where she wants to reside and she has indicated that she would presently reside with her parents and would
I
,-i ' l' L take a decision when she attains the age of 18, as claimed by her parents.
Althougli she maintains that she is over 18 even today, but for the wishes of her parents, she states that she would take a decision once she attains the age of 18, as claimed by her parents, which would be on 02.03.2013. She will continue her education while in the custody of her parents and the parents have also indicated and undertaken that they shall not take their daughter Pallavi outside Delhi till
02.03.2013 when Pallavi would be free to take any decision with regard to where she would reside. They have also undertaken that they will not take any step to disturb the status of Pallavi and the respondent no.4 till 02.03.2013, when, Pallavi alone would take that decision. The petitioner and his wife have agreed that they will not create any hindrance to the respondent no.4 visiting and meeting Pallavi once in every 15 days at Pallavi's residence nor will they prevent Pallavi from talking to the respondent no.4 over the telephone.
In view of the position indicated above, the petitioners as well as Pallavi have stated that they shall cooperate in quashing of the FIR No.150l20ll, registered at Police Station Sagarpur. The petitioner and his wife shall be bound by the undertakings mentioned above. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid te'rns.
,/'/'/q - BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J I l,/1 /r-r^-P
VEENAU'ffi;;
;
SEPTEMBER 26, 20L1 srb
JUDGMENT