P L D 1962 (W (PLP)

A. A. G with Murtaza Hassan for Respondents 5‑

8. Date of hearing : 13th July 1962. This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus under section 491, Cr. P. C. by Amir Bux, the father of Mst. Sohni, has preferred this application and alleged that Mst. Sohni was kidnapped and abducted by Respondents 1 to

3. Mst. Sohni was produced before me on the last date of hearing by Respondent No. 3 in pursuance of an undertaking given by his counsel on the 2nd of July 1962.

2. On the last date of hearing Mr. Riaz Hashmi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, requested me to keep the detenu under the control of the Court in a place where she would not be under the influence of any of the contesting parties in these proceedings. Accordingly on the 9th of July 1962 I directed that Mst. Sohni should be kept during the pendency of these proceedings in St. Lawrence's Convent. The Additional Registrar later on informed me that the authorities of this institu tion were not prepared to receive the detenu. Consequently I directed that Mst. Sohni should be kept during the pendency of these proceedings in Nashaiman Institute. The girl has been produced before me again today. I have examined her. It is quite clear from her statement that she was married to Meherali, Respondent No. 1, in March 1962 and that she was living with him of her own free will and consent. I allowed Mr. Riaz Hashmi to put questions to Mst. Sohni to satisfy himself that she was not living with Respondent No. 1 under any coercion or undue pressure. From the questions put by Mr. Riaz Hashmi it is quite clear to me that `the girl is not prepared to live with her father and is anxious to go alongwith Meherali, her husband. In these circumstances there is no other alternative for me but to allow the girl to go with Respondent No. 1 according to her desires.

3. Mr. Riaz Hashmi has however urged before me that the marriage between Respondent No. 1 and Mst. Sohni is fasid' because according to the counter affidavit filed by Amir Bux petitioner. Meharali, is his illegal son from Mst. Bhrai. The question whether this allegation has any foundation cannot be determined in these summary proceedings. If there is any truth in this allegation the petitioner should institute a suit for a declaration that the marriage between Mst. Sohni and Meharali is fasid' and cannot be recognised under the Muslim law. At present it is not possible for me to decide this question in these proceedings. 4: It was further urged by Mr. Riaz Hash Mi that the girl has not attained puberty and her age is about 14 years and therefore she should be examined by a doctor under the orders of this Court. The girl has appeared before me and she appears to me more than 14 years of age. In these circumstances I do not consider it necessary to get the girl examined by any doctor.

5. Under section 491 of the Criminal Procedure Code, this Court is only concerned with the question whether the detenu produced before it is living of her own free will with the party against whom the allegation of illegal detention is made. On this question I am satisfied that Mst. Sohni is living with Respon dents Nos. 1 to 3 of her own free will. It is therefore not possible for me to accede to the request made by Mr. Riaz Hashmi to allow the petitioner to take Mst. Sohni with him. If b the petitioner has any legitimate grievance against the respondents it is open to him to approach both the civil and criminal Courts of competent jurisdiction for its redress.

6. In the result I find no force in this petition and dismiss it. Mst. Sohni is allowed to go and live with whomsoever she desires. A. H. Petition dismissed.