(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI) 1.0 The matter is taken up as respondent No. 6 - Geetaben, wife of Nandram Gondaliya - the petitioner herein, is present before the Court. She has come all the way from Rajkot, therefore, Court deemed it proper to take up the case. In the morning when the matter was called out, neither learned advocate Mr. YJ Patel for the petitioner nor the petitioner - Nandram Gondaliya was present. The matter was kept back. The matter is taken up again at 1:20 p.m. Even in the second call, neither the learned advocate for the petitioner nor the petitioner - Nandram Gondaliya is present before the Court.
2.0 We have heard respondent No. 6 - Geetaben. She states that she married with the petitioner - Nandram about 18 years back when she was about 12 years of age. She further states that the marriage was under 'Sata' system under which, two sisters of the petitioner - Nandram were married with the sons of the uncle (father's brother) of respondent No. 6. It is the case of respondent No. 6 that right from the beginning Nandram - the petitioner was pressing for dowry and was causing harassment to her. Of late, despite the fact that, she has got two children (sons), elder one being 15 years of age and younger one is of 12 years, she has to leave the place of the petitioner. She further states that, at present, she is residing at Rajkot in rented premises near her sister (father's sister's daughter). In the petition, the allegations are made to the effect that respondent No. 6 is detained against her will by respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5, who are the brothers of respondent Nos. 6 (father's sister's sons).
3.0 We ascertained the aforesaid averments by inquiring from respondent No.
6. The same are found to be without any basis. Respondent No. 6, who is present in the Court has deposed as aforesaid without any fear. The Court is of the opinion that, she is deposing without being under influence of anybody.
3.1 At this juncture, learned advocate Mr. YJ Patel appeared. He submitted that, as his matter was going on in another Court, he was not present. The learned advocate is heard at length. The learned advocate invited attention of the Court to Annexure 'C', page 16. He submitted that the petition was filed to ascertain the contents of the document. He submitted that in light of the statement made by respondent No. 6, the petition may be disposed of.
4.0 In view of that, the Court finds no substance in the petition. The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ Ravi R. Tripathi, J. ] [ G. B. Shah, J. ] hiren Top