The learned advocate for the petitioner seeks permission to move the draft amendment. Permission is granted. 2. Ms.Priyanka Japee, learned advocate appears for respondent no.4-father of corpus, namely, Vora Bharakumar Lalluram.
The learned advocate files affidavit in reply affirmed by respondent no.4, along with document dated 6th December 2011 executed before Notary, Government of India, Himmatnagar (SK) titled as 'Divorce Deed'. The document is witnessed by one Shri Lalitkumar Chandulal Patel and Shri Patel Maheshbhai.
Learned advocate Mr.Maulik N. Shah appearing for the petitioner submitted that this document was not executed by free will. The learned advocate for respondent no.4 requested that let the father of the petitioner- Laxmanbhai Patel and those two witnesses be called to ascertain the free will for executing the said document and in their presence the aspect of free will may be ascertained.
3. The submissions of both the sides require consideration. In that view of the matter the learned advocates for the petitioner and respondents are requested to see that father of the petitioner and those two witnesses to that document remain present before this Court on 16th January 2012. The question now comes at to where the girl should be kept. Taking into consideration the fact that both the parties are going to assert the influence on the girl it is deemed proper that at present the girl may stay back with the learned advocate and may appear before the Court on 16th January 2012.
4. Mr. Vora Bharatkumar Lalluram, respondent No. 4, who is present in the Court assures this Court that the apprehension shown by the petitioner and the learned advocate for the petitioner about his influencing the petitioner, or any other person who is concerned with the matter will not be done. This is required to be noted because respondent No. 4 is serving as ASI with the police department at Himatnagar. S. O. 16th January 2012.
A copy of this order be made available to the learned advocate for the petitioner as learned advocate for respondent No. 4.
FURTHER ORDER:
5. After the aforesaid order is dictated, the girl, asserts that her signature on the so called divorce deed was not of her free will and she was required to sign it only on account of mental pressure exerted by the persons present there. That being so, taking into consideration the fact that the girl is major and she is willing to stay with the petitioner with whom she is legally married, as is clear from the marriage Certificate, respondent No. 4 is directed to allow her to go with the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 is further directed not to cause any hindrance in her going with the petitioner.
6. The learned APP Mr. Kodekar is directed to ensure that the girl is given a safe passage with the petitioner and till then, if required, respondent No. 4 may be asked to remain in company of the learned APP so that, he does not cause any hindrance in doing so.
7. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) karim (G.B. SHAH, J.)