'Abuse Of Process Of Law To Harass Corpus': Gujarat HC Imposes ₹35K Cost On A Man For Filing Frivolous Habeas Corpus Plea
The Gujarat High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 35,000 on a man, who happens to be the uncle of a consenting adult woman, as she had chosen to elope for marriage. The uncle had filed a Habeas Corpus petition, which the court deemed as an abuse of the legal process, resulting in unwarranted harassment of the individuals involved.A division bench of Justices AS Supehia and Vimal K...
The Gujarat High Court has imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 35,000 on a man, who happens to be the uncle of a consenting adult woman, as she had chosen to elope for marriage. The uncle had filed a Habeas Corpus petition, which the court deemed as an abuse of the legal process, resulting in unwarranted harassment of the individuals involved.
A division bench of Justices AS Supehia and Vimal K Vyas held, "Thus, the present writ petition appears to be a sheer abuse of process of law to harass the corpus and the respondent No.3. Hence, we are imposing an exemplary costs of Rs.35,000/- on the petitioner."
The Court at the outset expressed surprise at the filing of the writ petition by the corpus's uncle, who alleged that she was unlawfully and forcefully confined by respondent No.3, Navinbhai Jayantibhai Machhi.
In the course of the hearing, both the corpus and respondent No. 3 were in attendance before the bench, whereby they were heard in the chamber in presence of the Nimesh M Patel, the petitioner's counsel.
The corpus had specifically stated that her parents did not object to her staying with the boy, identified as respondent No. 3. However, her uncle, the petitioner, was pressuring her to stay with him. She specifically mentioned that he was threatening her and demanding Rs.10,00,000/-.
Additionally, she asserted that she was 20 years old, and she and the boy had engaged in a ceremony of engagement to marry. Moreover, respondent No. 3 stated that he would turn 21 on 17.12.2023 and expressed his intention to marry the corpus.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petition was filed by the corpus's uncle, as the parents of the corpus were previously divorced. The counsel additionally stated that a prior arrangement between the parents dictated that upon reaching the age of 18, the corpus would be entrusted to her father. Additionally, it was asserted that the parents had previously agreed that upon reaching the age of 18, the corpus would be entrusted to her father. Currently residing with her uncle, the corpus had run away, prompting him to file the writ petition.
The court observed that the corpus, who was a major, had neither of her parents arraigned as respondents. The sole individual arraigned was the uncle of the corpus, the petitioner, who sought custody by alleging that the corpus was falsely confined by respondent No.3.
It was observed by the court that both the corpus and respondent No.3 had explicitly mentioned the threats issued by the petitioner. They expressed fear of potential assault and attested that the petitioner had threatened them. The Court also noted that the Respondent No.3 had additionally claimed to have already experienced assault and humiliation in the village by the petitioner's relatives.
In response, the court directed, “Under the circumstances, the concerned Police Officer of the local Police Station is directed to provide police protection to the both i.e. the corpus and the respondent No.3, as and when they request and their statement shall also be recorded with regard to their safety and wellbeing.”
“The petitioner or his relative shall not be allowed to meet with the corpus or the respondent No.3. The petitioner shall not make any attempt to meet the corpus or the respondent No.3,” the Court added.
As part of its directive, the court instructed the petitioner to pay exemplary costs within 10 days, with a warning that failure to comply would lead to an order seeking his presence.
“After the aforesaid amount is deposited, the Registry shall disburse the said amount to the corpus i.e. respondent No.8, after due verification. Registry shall list the matter in case the cost is not deposited,” the Court concluded wile rejecting the petition.
Appearance: Mr Nimesh M Patel(6780) For The Applicant(S) No. 1 Mr Rahul Rajhans(12788) For The Applicant(S) No. 1 Mr Imtiyaz I Mansuri(9159) For The Respondent(S) No. 3,4,6,8 Ms Krina Calla, App For The Respondent(S) No. 1 Served By Rpad (N) For The Respondent(S) No. 2,5,7
LL Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 196
Case Title: Machhi Navinbhai Motibhai Versus State Of Gujarat
Case No.: R/Special Criminal Application (Habeas Corpus) No. 14783 Of 2023