W.P.(CRL)/538/2016 of RAUSHAN RAI & ORS Vs THE STATE & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 538/2016RAUSHAN RAI & ORS..... PetitionersThrough:Mr.SunilDalal,Mr.PradeepSehrawat and Ms. Manju Sehrawat,Advs.

versus

THE STATE & ORS..... RespondentsThrough:Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counselwith Mr. Jamal Akhtar, Adv. with SIParmila, P.S. B.H.D. Ngr.Respondent no.2 produced from NariNiketan.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAKO R R%06.10.2016

It emerges from the material placed on record that petitioner no.1 andrespondent no. 3 have married against the wishes of their parents. Petitionerno.2 is father of petitioner no.1. They have married in temple at MuzaffarNagar on 30[th]December, 2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies.Admittedly, at the time of marriage petitioner no.1 as well as respondent no.3 were minors and they still are.Date of birth of petitioner no.1 is 28[th]March, 1999 and he will attain majority on 28[th]March, 2017; whereas dateof birth of respondent no. 3 is 7[th]January, 1999 and she will attain the age ofmajority on 7[th]January, 2017.It is also not in dispute that from their

wedlock one girl child, namely, Kirti was born on 25[th]December, 2015.Presently, respondent no. 3 along with baby Kirti is living in Nari Niketan,Delhi. Custody of respondent no. 3 and her child cannot be handed over topetitioner no.1 as he is still minor. However, custody of respondent no. 3and child can be given to petitioner no.2, father of petitioner no.1, in view ofthe law laid down in ‘Court on its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) Vs. State 2012VI AD Delhi 465’.

On 2[nd]March, 2016 Zakir Hussain, father of respondent no. 3, hadappeared in Court and stated that he was ready and willing to keeprespondent no. 3 and her child till she attains the age of majority. However,it appears that father of respondent no. 3 has not taken custody of respondentno. 3 and her child, and for this reason, they are living in Nari Niketan.

Petitioner no.2, father of petitioner no.1, has filed his affidavitcategorically stating therein that he takes the responsibility of respondent no.3 and her daughter and they may stay at his house. He has further givenassurance in the affidavit that petitioner no.1 and responded no. 3 will not bepermitted to cohabit till they attain age of majority.

Presently, respondent no. 3 and her nine months old child are living inNari Niketan. In my view continuance of their stay in Nari Niketan will not

be in the interest of child, whose healthy growth will be better in homelyatmosphere. Respondent no. 3 and her child would be better looked after inthe house of petitioner no.2. Accordingly, respondent no. 2-Nari Niketan isdirected to hand over the custody of respondent no. 3 and her child to thepetitioner no.2 forthwith.

Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.Miscellaneous

application is disposed of as infructuous.

Dasti.

OCTOBER 06, 2016ga

A.K. PATHAK, J.