Case Title:
MUKESH KUMAR SEN & Ors. Versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Date Of Order:
21st August 2024
Bench:
Justice Pratibha M. Singh, Justice Amit Sharma
Parties:
Petitioner: MUKESH KUMAR SEN & Ors
Respondent: STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS
Subject:
This petition is being submitted on behalf of Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sen, the Petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The purpose is to request the issue of a writ in the form of habeas corpus to compel the production of his daughter.
Important Provisions
Article 226
(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.
(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.
(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without—
(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and
(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard,
makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.
(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32.
Facts
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sen is the person who initiated this case. He submitted a petition in accordance with Article 226 of the Constitution, requesting a warrant of habeas corpus for his daughter, who went missing on July 1, 2024.
After some time had passed, Mr. Sen learned that his daughter had purportedly tied the knot with her uncle, Mr. Satendra Kumar (Respondent No. 5), on the same day at Arya Samaj Mandir, which is located in Khirki Village, New Delhi.
The marriage ceremony was held in private, and there were no members of the respondent's family present. The marriage certificate revealed that Respondent No. 5 had made a false declaration that he was not married with another person.
At the same time that Mr. Sen and his sister, Mrs. K (the girl's Bua), filed complaints with the police, they expressed worry for the daughter's well-being and questioned the legitimacy of the marriage. Respondent No. 5 was also accused of blocking the petitioner and his wife from seeing their daughter.
Furthermore, the said respondent stated that the marriage was lawful and voluntary, indicating that the girl was of legal age and had freely engaged into the marriage. This was in response to the previous respondent's first statement. In spite of the fact that he recognized his previous marriage to Mrs. K, he said that he was going to file for divorce.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Pursuant to Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sen, the petitioner, filed a habeas corpus plea with the aim of securing the presence of his daughter, whom he claimed been missing since July 1, 2024.
As per his investigation, his daughter allegedly married her uncle, Mr. Satendra Kumar (Respondent No. 5), in an undisclosed ceremony conducted at Arya Samaj Mandir, Khirki Village, New Delhi, on the same day.
Since Respondent No. 5 had falsely claimed to be unmarried on the marriage certificate, the petitioner argued that the marriage was illegal and so void.
Furthermore, it was also stated that Respondent No. 5 was causing a hinderance in the meeting between the petitioner, his wife and their daughter, and as thus are violating the rights of both of them as the lawful parents.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent argued that the marriage with the petitioner's daughter was legally binding and that all parties concerned were in agreement with the same. Furthermore, the Arya Samaj Mandir received notification that all essential paperwork for the marriage, including affidavits that adhered to the temple's rules, had been filed.
The individual who responded stressed that the girl had reached the age of majority and had voluntarily married him. In addition, he admitted that he had been married to Mrs. K, the petitioner's sister, in the past, but he indicated that he wanted to file for divorce from her.
It was his contention that the legitimacy of his second marriage to the petitioner's daughter was not affected by the fact that he had previously been married to another woman. Additionally, he questioned the petitioner's standing in the case, stating that Mr. Sen was not the girl's biological father.
He expressed his disagreement with the petitioner's position. In addition, the responder brought attention to the fact that the girl had communicated her intention to be independent as an adult by stating that she did not want to go back to her parents.
Court’s Analysis
The court had examined and thoroughly analyzed the procedure and the traditions that are followed by the Arya Samaj Mandir and in furtherance of the same had concluded that marriages were carried out subsequent to the presentation of paperwork such as affidavits, Aadhar cards, and ID cards, without previous confirmation of the marital eligibility of the couples.
According to Mr. Singh, the temple typically conducts about 25 marriages per month, with a greater frequency during favourable periods. Furthermore, he specified that the temple is solely owned and managed by him and his wife.
The girl notified the court that the petitioner was not her biological father, but rather her mother's second spouse. She said that she had voluntarily married Mr. Satendra, with whom she had been known for a number of years.
However, it was discovered that the marriage was founded on fraudulent statements, as Mr. Satendra had inaccurately claimed to be unmarried although being legally married to Mrs. K and having a minor son with her.
The court declared the marriage as a void upon the grounds of the aforementioned statement that fraud and false and acknowledged Mrs. K's entitlement to seek legal remedies for her complaints, such as financial support, housing, and protection from domestic abuse.
Furthermore, the court mandated that both Mr. Satendra and Ms. Tara Kumari must refrain from harassing Mrs. K. Upon reaching the age of majority, the girl clearly indicated her refusal to be returned to her parents, resulting in the issuance of no additional custody orders.
The primary records provided by Mr. Singh were sent to the investigating officer for further investigation. The court has instructed Arya Samaj Mandir to establish more rigorous verification protocols for future nuptials, guaranteeing that witnesses are authentic and ideally family members of the bride and groom. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed with these instructions.
