Habeas Corpus No.3655/2012. Praveen Parmar v. State of Rajasthan [ 1 ] D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3655/2012 & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Pritam Solanki, for the petitioner. Mr. B.K. Mehar, Government Counsel. Mr. Shree Kant Verma, for the respondents Nos. 4 & 5. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bansal, respondent No. 4. Smt. Nisha Bansal, respondent No. 5. Mr. Praveen Parmar, petitioner present-in-person. Ms. Priya D/o respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Ms. Saroj, Sub-Inspector, PS Mount Abu. <<>> BY THE COURT: The petitioner is present-in-person with his counsel Mr. Solanki. The learned Government Counsel Mr. B.K. Mehar is also present. Though notices have not been issued to the other respondents but the learned counsel Mr. Shree Kant Verma is also present along with the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, Shri Dinesh Kumar Bansal and Smt. Nisha Bansal, said to be the parents of the alleged detenu. The alleged detenu, Ms. Priya, daughter of the respondents Nos. 4 and 5, has been produced before us. We have conferred with her in camera and thereafter, in the presence of all the concerned.
She has categorically stated Habeas Corpus No.3655/2012. Praveen Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [ 2 ] that she has contacted marriage with the petitioner Praveen Parmar and wants to go with him. She is admittedly above 22 years of age; and is pursuing Chartered Accountancy Course wherein she shall now be appearing in the final examination. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and with the categorical statement made by Ms. Priya, we deem it proper to observe that she is free to go wherever she wants to; and for that matter, Ms. Saroj, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Mount Abu, present in Court shall ensure her safe passage to the chosen destination. We may, in the passing, also observe that as per the submissions made, an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the parties before the District Judge, Sirohi that has been registered as Civil Misc. Case No.
117/2011. The learned District Judge adjourned the matter on 11.04.2012 for 15 days while giving the parties time to reconsider; and the matter is now fixed in the Court concerned on 09.05.2012. The parties may appear in the said Court on the given date and make relevant submissions in accordance with law. So far this petition for a writ of habeas corpus is concerned, no further orders are requisite herein and the same stands disposed of. (C.M. TOTLA), J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Rajasthan High Court, on 23 Apr 2012. The bench was DINESH MAHESHWARI, C M TOTLA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.