Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Rewaram Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Rewaram vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Feb 12, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1048974

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rewaram

Advocate Shri. B.R.Koshta

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

w.p.no.1653/2013 12-02-2013 shri b.r.koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri a.k.chourasia, learned govt. advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2. petitioner rewaram is also present with his counsel. rewaram, the petitioner herein has filed writ petition inter alia contending that his daughter the corpus is missing since night intervening 24/25.12.2012 and he has lodged an fir. however, as the police authorities were unable to trace her, he filed this habeas corpus inter alia contending that his daughter is in illegal custody with respondent no.3. notices were issued to the authorities of police station lakhnadon and they were directed to produce corpus on 15-02-2013. however, the learned counsel for the state government made a submission that on inquiry the corpus has been located and she has been produced. therefore, on the request made by the learned counsel for the state government the said case is taken up for hearing. from the records, it is seen that corpus is more than 19 years of age and it is stated by her that she is married with respondent no.3 and living with him and does not want to go with her parents. she says that she is staying with respondent no.3 and has not made any complaint in the matter. keeping in view the submission made and the documents available on record, which goes to show that corpus is more than 19 years of age, no further indulgence into the matter is called for as illegal custody of the corpus as alleged by the petitioner is not established from the material available on record. 2 accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, this petition is dismissed. (rajendra menon) judge hsp.

Full Judgment

W.P.NO.1653/2013 12-02-2013 Shri B.R.Koshta, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri A.K.Chourasia, learned Govt.

Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Petitioner Rewaram is also present with his counsel.

Rewaram, the petitioner herein has filed writ petition inter alia contending that his daughter the corpus is missing since night intervening 24/25.12.2012 and he has lodged an FIR.

However, as the police authorities were unable to trace her, he filed this habeas corpus inter alia contending that his daughter is in illegal custody with respondent no.3.

Notices were issued to the authorities of Police Station Lakhnadon and they were directed to produce corpus on 15-02-2013.

However, the learned counsel for the State Government made a submission that on inquiry the corpus has been located and she has been produced.

Therefore, on the request made by the learned Counsel for the State Government the said case is taken up for hearing.

From the records, it is seen that corpus is more than 19 years of age and it is stated by her that she is married with respondent no.3 and living with him and does not want to go with her parents.

She says that she is staying with respondent no.3 and has not made any complaint in the matter.

Keeping in view the submission made and the documents available on record, which goes to show that corpus is more than 19 years of age, no further indulgence into the matter is called for as illegal custody of the corpus as alleged by the petitioner is not established from the material available on record.

2 Accordingly, finding no ground to interfere, this petition is dismissed.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE hsp.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial