Anita Yadav Vs. Manas Roy and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....or the multiplicand having regard to the circumstances of the case and capitalising the multiplicand by an appropriate multiplier. the choice of the multiplier is determined by the age of the deceased (or that of the claimants whichever is higher) and by the calculation as to what capital sum, if invested at a rate of interest appropriate to a stable economy, would yield the multiplicand by way of annual interest. in ascertaining this, regard should also be had to the fact that ultimately the capital sum should also be consumed up over the period for which the dependency is expected to last. deceased aged 43 years at time of accident and was hawker. multiplier of 10 and rate of interest @ 6% p.a. would be appropriate and not multiplier of 15 and interest rate @ 9% p.a. fixed by high court. compensation was determined at rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. order1. leave granted.2. these appeals are directed against the orders dated 16th july, 2007 and 17th september, 2007 passed by the delhi high court in writ petition (crl.) 651/2007, which was a habeas corpus petition. pursuant to notice served on the father of the appellant herein, the appellant appeared before the high court in the habeas corpus proceedings and personally informed the court that she was not willing to go back to the respondent no. 1 herein and that she wished to stay with her parents.3. at that point of time, the parties in the habeas corpus petition were served and there was no further reason to continue to proceed with the writ petition. however, despite the above, the high court on 17th september, 2007 directed the father of the appellant to be present along with the appellant before the court on certain allegations made by the respondent no. 1 herein that she was married to him.4. we fail to understand how in a habeas corpus petition, such a direction could have been given since the appellant had already appeared and had made her preference known and had also filed an affidavit in which the case of the appellant was supported.5. in that view of the matter,.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the orders dated 16th July, 2007 and 17th September, 2007 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (Crl.) 651/2007, which was a Habeas Corpus petition. Pursuant to notice served on the father of the appellant herein, the appellant appeared before the High Court in the Habeas Corpus proceedings and personally informed the court that she was not willing to go back to the respondent No. 1 herein and that she wished to stay with her parents.

3. At that point of time, the parties in the Habeas Corpus petition were served and there was no further reason to continue to proceed with the writ petition. However, despite the above, the High Court on 17th September, 2007 directed the father of the appellant to be present along with the appellant before the court on certain allegations made by the respondent No. 1 herein that she was married to him.

4. We fail to understand how in a Habeas Corpus petition, such a direction could have been given since the appellant had already appeared and had made her preference known and had also filed an affidavit in which the case of the appellant was supported.

5. In that view of the matter, the appeals are allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court are set aside.