The Allahabad high court has reunited a Hindu woman with her Muslim husband, underlining that “she has a choice to live her life on her own terms”. A bench of justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal determined on December 18 a habeas corpus plea filed by the man, who complained his wife had been sent to her parents against her wishes by the Nari Niketan or Child Welfare Committee (CWC).
The division bench, after interacting with the woman, famous that she unequivocally expressed her desire to stick with her husband.
It said that she is “free to move as per her own choice without any restriction or hinderance being created by third party”. The court also quashed an FIR registered against the man for allegedly abducting the woman.
The bench set aside an order of the chief judicial magistrate (CJM) of remanding the woman to the Nari Niketan while stating that the act of the trial court and the CWC, Etah, reflected a lack of appreciation of valid provisions.
The court said the woman was once an adult as her date of birth was once October 4, 1999 and the trial court did not appreciate the truth that when a school certificate had been produced, then any other evidence would be secondary and must not be relied on.
Also Read | Approximately 35 arrests, dozen FIRs as UP ‘love jihad’ law completes one month
The court was once hearing the plea by the husband, who through his counsel had contended that his wife was once sent to the CWC against her choice, which, a day later, handed her custody to the parents.
On December 16, the court asked police to produce the woman on December 18. On the said date, the court interacted with the woman who said her date of birth was once October 4, 1999 and she had attained the age of majority. She told the court that she had entered into wedlock and wanted to live with her husband.
Following this, the court said, “As the corpus (woman) has attained the age of majority and she has a choice to live her life on her own terms and she has expressed that she wants to live with her husband, she is free to move as per her own choice without any restriction or hinderance being created by third party”.
While quashing the order of the city court, Etah, the bench said it had been passed “without application of brain”.[ad_2]