Skip to content


Madhu Bala Vs. Narender Kumar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 7 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1982SC938; 1982CriLJ855; (1982)2SCC444
AppellantMadhu Bala
RespondentNarender Kumar and ors.
Excerpt:
.....not want to go to the first respondent. we have satisfied ourselves that the appellant is not being detained against her will and without her consent. the application for a writ of habeas corpus for her production and release must therefore fail......before us that she is not being detained by her parents against her will and she does not want to go to the first respondent. we asked the appellant her age and she stated that she has just completed 21 years in the month of mar. 1981. she also appears to be of 21 years age. we have satisfied ourselves that the appellant is not being detained against her will and without her consent. the application for a writ of habeas corpus for her production and release must therefore fail. neither the dismissal of this application for a writ of habeas corpus nor anything we have said in this order will stand in the way of the first respondent agitating, if he so wishes, the factum of marriage or any other civil on matrimonial rights which he may have against the appellant and it will be for the.....
Judgment:

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. Special leave granted.

2. The appellant appeared before us in chamber and we questioned her in order to find out whether she is being detained by her parents against her wish and she is being prevented from going to the first respondent. The appellant stated clearly and unequivocally before us that she is not being detained by her parents against her will and she does not want to go to the first respondent. We asked the appellant her age and she stated that she has just completed 21 years in the month of Mar. 1981. She also appears to be of 21 years age. We have satisfied ourselves that the appellant is not being detained against her will and without her consent. The application for a writ of habeas corpus for her production and release must therefore fail. Neither the dismissal of this application for a writ of habeas corpus nor anything we have said in this order will stand in the way of the first respondent agitating, if he so wishes, the factum of marriage or any other civil on matrimonial rights which he may have against the appellant and it will be for the appropriate Court in which such question is raised to decide it on the evidence which may be led before it Appeal is disposed of in the light of the above observations.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //