# Smt. Arti & another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2012) 2 ILRA 1038
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-07-19
- **Bench:** Dharnidhar Jha, Ramesh Sinha
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-arti-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-42288
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Writ Petition-17 years old girlseeking
freedom
from
wrongful
confinement from the custody of her
father-as per medical examination she is
about 17 years-variation of 3 years as
allowed by Apex Court-age of petitioner
come as 20 years-she is not an accused
no induced for illegal custody-held-free
to join the company of a man of her
choice-argument
that
after
getting
custody she was married with another
man-being never choice of petitionerdirection issued to join company of a
man
of
her
choice.
2 All] Smt. Arti & another V. State of U.P. and others
1039
Held: Para 6

We were, simply, fortifying ourselves
that the lady has a right to exercise her
option as a matter of exercising her
liberty and freedom granted under the
constitution
to
chose her
own
life
partner and our views stand vindicated
that in absence of an allegation and the
lady being major had all the rights to
walk out of her parents house, out of her
own volition, to go with a man of her
choice to settle down in her life and
there was no legal impediment in the
affairs of Smt. Arti and no one including
respondent no. 4 could have been within
his right to create any impediment in
enjoyment of right of freedom and
liberty of choosing a life partner. We, as
such, direct the Superintendent Nari
Niketan to set Smt. Arti free so that she
walks out of the institution freely and
goes wherever she likes.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1982 SC 1297

## Text

1038 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
explained the reasons for the delay in filing
of the revision. We, hold that Section 5
application
made
by
the
petitioner,
deserves to be granted. It is, accordingly
allowed. Revision filed by the petitioner
shall be treated to be within time.

16. It may be recorded that Sri
R.P.Pandey, learned counsel on behalf of
complainant as well as A.G.A. on behalf of
State,
have
agreed
that
Section
5
application may be disposed of by this
Court itself and that they have no objection
to such a decision being taken by the High
Court.

17. We direct that the Session Judge,
Badaun shall proceed to hear and decide
the revision on merits without granting any
un-necessary adjournment to either of the
parties. The revision shall be decided by
means of reasoned order within four weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is filed before the Revisional Court. The
parties shall produce the certified copy of
this order before the Court concerned
within three weeks from today.

18. In order to keep the record
straight it may also be noticed that counsel
for the respondent No.2 has pointed out
that against the summoning order dated
18.8.2009 of the Magistrate, an application
under Section 482 was filed by one of the
co-accused namely Tejendra Sagar being
Criminal Misc.Application No.26758 of
2009. The same has been dismissed by the
High Court on 21.10.2009. Against the
order of the High Court, Tejendra Sagar
filed Special Leave to Appeal before the
Apex Court being Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl) No.8717 of 2009 which has been
dismissed
by
the
Apex
Court
on
30.11.2009.

19. With the aforesaid directions the
writ petition is allowed.

20. Interim order, if any, stands
discharged.

21. It is clarified that we have not
expressed any opinion on merits of
summoning order dated 18.8.2009 passed
by the Magistrate.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DHARNIDHAR JHA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. - 21540
OF 2012

Smt. Arti & another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.S. Shah
Smt. Farida Jamal

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.
Sri Abhishek Pandey

Constitution of India, Article 226-Habeas
Corpus Writ Petition-17 years old girlseeking
freedom
from
wrongful
confinement from the custody of her
father-as per medical examination she is
about 17 years-variation of 3 years as
allowed by Apex Court-age of petitioner
come as 20 years-she is not an accused
no induced for illegal custody-held-free
to join the company of a man of her
choice-argument
that
after
getting
custody she was married with another
man-being never choice of petitionerdirection issued to join company of a
man
of
her
choice.
2 All] Smt. Arti & another V. State of U.P. and others
1039
Held: Para 6

We were, simply, fortifying ourselves
that the lady has a right to exercise her
option as a matter of exercising her
liberty and freedom granted under the
constitution
to
chose her
own
life
partner and our views stand vindicated
that in absence of an allegation and the
lady being major had all the rights to
walk out of her parents house, out of her
own volition, to go with a man of her
choice to settle down in her life and
there was no legal impediment in the
affairs of Smt. Arti and no one including
respondent no. 4 could have been within
his right to create any impediment in
enjoyment of right of freedom and
liberty of choosing a life partner. We, as
such, direct the Superintendent Nari
Niketan to set Smt. Arti free so that she
walks out of the institution freely and
goes wherever she likes.
Case law discussed:
A.I.R. 1982 SC 1297

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dharnidhar Jha, J.)

1. Sri Abhisekh Pandey, Advocate
appears on behalf of respondent no. 4,
father of Smt. Arti- petitioner no. 1. Sri R.
A. Mishra, learned A.G.A. has placed
before us the original copy of the report of
the Medical Board regarding assessment of
age of petitioner no. 1 Smt. Arti as per
which the Board of Doctors had assessed
her to be aged about 17 years.

2. We had passed a detailed order on
02.07.2012, on which date petitioner no. 1
Smt. Arti was produced under police
custody from the custody of her father
respondent no. 4. We had held the very
order handing over the custody of petitioner
no. 1 to respondent no. 4, her father as
unsustainable in law as the authority who
had passed the order did not have that
jurisdiction, inter alia, for the reason that the
S. D. M., Rampur, Maniharan could have
acted in the matter only when there was
full-fledged application under Section 97
Cr.P.C. he had also noticed unfortunate
consequences, which had entailed due to the
passing of a completely illegal order by
applying a jurisdiction, which was never
vested in S.D.M., Rampur Maniharan and
had high-lighted the plight of the lady being
forced to marry to another man whom she
did not like nor chose as her life partner.

3. We had under the above
circumstances noted that the order of the
S.D.M., Rampur Mahiharan and the action
of father of Smt. Arti, respondent no. 4 was
quite unconstitutional and unsustainable in
law. Under the above premises, we had
directed Smt. Arti to be taken back to
Superintendent, Nari Niketan, Meerut and,
accordingly, she is lodged there presently.

4. The learned counsel appearing for
father, respondent no. 4 contests the prayer
of the petitioners to allow Smt. Arti to enjoy
her freedom by being released from custody
she has presently been put in on the ground
that the lady was got married to a man after
respondent no. 4 got her custody by virtue
of an order passed by the S. D. M., Rampur,
Maniharan on 26.04.2012.

5. The learned A.G.A. also contests
the prayer of petitioners on the ground that
petitioner-Smt. Arti was aged about 17
years and she was below 18 years of age
and she could not be directed to be set free
and the custody of the father could be the
only legal custody. The contention of Sri
Mishra, the learned A.G.A. hinges upon the
medical report, we have just noted. We
simply want to refer to the case of Jaya
Mal Vs. Home Secretary, Government of
Jammu and Kashmir reported in A.I.R.
1982 SC 1297 which is widely being
followed by all courts to hold that three
1040 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
years have to be added to the age of a victim
of an offence whose age has been medically
assessed.
Following
that
particular
principle, if we add up three years to 17
years which is the age assessed by the
Board of Doctors, we obtain 20 years,
which could be said to be the approximate
age of Smt. Arti. She is not a victim of an
offence. There is no case registered on
allegation that she was enticed or taking
away rather she herself walked into the
police station seeking protection of Nanauta
Police on account of the supposed threat to
her life at the hands of respondent no. 4 and
others. These are all noted by the S.D.M.,
Rampur Maniharan, in his order dated dated
30th of December, 2011 and accordingly
the lady was handed over to the Officer
Incharge of that particular police station,
who prayed for keeping the lady in custody
of Superintendent, Mahila Sharnalaya,
Meerut, from where, we have noted earlier,
the lady was handed over to her father.

6. As regards the liberty of a person,
there could not be any particular age as the
constitution does not provide 18 years of
age. Age of under 18 years of a lady could
be relevant only when we are called upon to
consider the release of such a lady, if there
is a report of commission of offences under
Section 363, 366 and 366A I.P.C.. There
being no case registered and also there
being no allegation coming from any corner
whatsoever that the lady was taken or
enticed away by any one, we can not
suppose things which are not available to us
from the record. As such, the contention of
the counsel for the respondent no. 4 or the
learned A.G.A, in our opinion, does not
hold good because when the constitution
does not require liberty to be granted to any
person of any particular age then it is
universally available to all who live within
the territory of India irrespective of the fact,
whether he is a citizen of India or is an
outsider. We were, simply, fortifying
ourselves that the lady has a right to
exercise her option as a matter of exercising
her liberty and freedom granted under the
constitution to chose her own life partner
and our views stand vindicated that in
absence of an allegation and the lady being
major had all the rights to walk out of her
parents house, out of her own volition, to go
with a man of her choice to settle down in
her life and there was no legal impediment
in the affairs of Smt. Arti and no one
including respondent no. 4 could have been
within his right to create any impediment in
enjoyment of right of freedom and liberty of
choosing a life partner. We, as such, direct
the Superintendent Nari Niketan to set Smt.
Arti free so that she walks out of the
institution freely and goes wherever she
likes.

7. The learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent no. 4 was raising a
preliminary objection also on the ground
that the lady had got married to a man after
her custody was handed over to his father,
respondent no. 4. We have already detailed
the circumstances under which the marriage
was thrust upon the lady against her will
and she had pointed out to us as may appear
from our earlier order dated 02.07.2012,
that she was deeply humiliated and
brutalized on account of being subjected to
the rituals of such a marriage and desires of
a man, who was never a man of her liking
or choice.

8. In our opinion, it could be falling
some where between a void and voidable
marriage and could not have the sanction of
law because a marriage forced upon a major
lady could not be upheld under the facts and
circumstances we have just noted as it
simply appears violative of her fundamental
2 All] G.N.Shukla V. S.D.O. Sadar district Agra and others
1041
human rights of marrying a man of her own
choice, specially, when she had already got
herself married to a man. Such marriage if
upheld would only continue violation of the
basic human right of the lady.

9. With the above, which we have
recorded presently, we finally dispose of the
present petition.

10. Learned A.G.A has filed a
photocopy of the medical report after we
have dictated the order and that be kept on
record as part of the present proceeding.

11. Let learned A.G.A. inform the
Superintendent Nari Niketan, Meerut about
the
order
ofsetting
Smt.
Arti
free,
immediately.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.07.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 14097 of 1993

G.N. Shukla

 ...Petitioner
Versus
S.D.O. Sadar district Agra and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S. Prakash
Sri D. Tiwari
Sri Upasana Dubey
Sri V.Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri M.C. Jain

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226Principle of "Natural Justice"-violation
thereof-when
not
fetal-explaineddismissal
on
ground
of
deliberate
disobedience to the order of superior,
negligence
in
performance
of
duty
inspite of transfer petitioner failed to
handover the public documents despite
of best effort-ultimately F.I.R. Lodged-in
disciplinary
proceeding
all
charges
proved-nothing whisper by the petitioner
for not giving the charge to the new
transfree-violation of Principle of Natural
Justice
mere
technical
plea-has
no
substance-petition dismissed.

Held: Para 12 and 14

In the facts of the case, there is
absolutely no averment in the present
writ petition qua the petitioner having
handed over the official records or that
the finding recorded in that regard being
bad. No prejudice has been pleaded nor
shown due to non-supply of the enquiry
report.

In these set of circumstances, this Court
has no hesitation to record that the plea
of violation of principles of natural
justice is only a technical plea, which has
no substance. Petitioner has hopelessly
failed to establish any prejudice which
may have been caused to him because of
non-supply of the enquiry report.
Case law discussed:
AIR 2006 SC 644; (2006) 3 SCC 150; (2008) 9
SCC 31

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. Petitioner before this Court was
working as the Lekhpal in the revenue
department of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
Petitioner was transferred vide order dated
6th January, 1993 from area Nagla Padi to
area Angoothi, Tehsil Sadar, District Agra.
He was directed to handover the charge
including the official records in his
possession to Sri Prakash Chandra Jain.
Despite relieving officer having visited the