(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Pursuant to notice of Rule, the wife of the petitioner is brought before the Court. Upon being asked, she has clearly and categorically stated that she wants to return to her matrimonial home with the petitioner. Learned counsel, Mr.Kapadia, appearing for respondent no.5 vehemently argued that she was not kept in any illegal confinement by respondent no.5 and it being a question of her life she may not be permitted to go with the petitioner, who belongs to a totally different community. In view of the fact that marriage of the petitioner with daughter of respondent no.5 is not in dispute and respondent no.6, daughter of respondent no.5 is major being born on 21.10.1992, her freedom of movement and choosing her course of action cannot be restrained or dictated. However, in view of emotional outburst expressed by respondent no.5 and persons accompanying him, it is necessary that safety of the petitioner and respondent no.6 is ensured by the police by providing them adequate protection against any coercion or violence.
2. It was also submitted by learned counsel, Mr.N.V.Gandhi, appearing for the petitioner that police have filed summary report in respect of investigation into FIR lodged by respondent no.5 and registered as I-C.R. No.115 of 2011 on 7.9.2011 in Bardoli Police Station of District-Surat. In these facts, respondent no.6 is permitted to choose her own course of action and Rule is discharged with no order as to costs with the observation that police officer concerned bringing respondent no.6 to the Court may provide adequate protection to respondent no.6 till she is in safe and proper custody of her husband or put up at a place of her choice.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (N.V.Anjaria, J.) *malek Top