Ram Karan v. State N C T of Delhi & Anr

J U D G M E N T

¶1Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 B.N.S.S., 2023 and petitioner, inter alia, seeks directions in the nature of Habeas Corpus to the respondents to produce his wife.

¶2It is stated in the present petition that the petitioner got married to one Ms. Pooja (daughter of respondent No.2), out of their sweet and free will, albeit, without the consent of her family members. On 13.09.2025, the

petitioner and his wife were allegedly detained illegally by police officials of PS Vijay Vihar despite both being major and having married voluntarily.

¶3On 17.09.2025, the petitioner was taken to PS Vijay Vihar, but his wife was not present there. Subsequently, the family members of the petitioner's wife threatened to kill both of them, and a false Kalandra was lodged against the petitioner, following which he was sent to judicial custody. After his release, the petitioner searched for his wife but could not find her. Complaints were lodged before SHO, PS Vijay Vihar, and higher police authorities, but no effective action was taken. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking directions to trace out and produce his wife.

¶4Notice issued.

¶5Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and submits that the alleged missing wife is present in the Court, who is staying with her free will with her parents and has no connection whatsoever with the petitioner.

¶6We have made direct queries from her. She is major, her date of birth being 10.09.2007. She states that she has studied upto 10th. She also, while denying the factum of there being any marriage, does not want to go with petitioner. Her such statement seems voluntary and without any pressure.

¶7Status report dated 11.11.2025 has been submitted during the course of proceedings and same is taken on record.

¶8In view of the above and since the alleged missing girl is an adult and is staying with her parents and since according to her, there is no legal relationship between her and the petitioner, no further order is required to be passed in the present petition.

¶9Resultantly, the petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.

¶10All rights and contentions of parties are left open.

(VIVEK CHAUDHARY)

JUDGE

(MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE NOVEMBER 11, 2025 st/js

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision:11th November,2025 + W.P.(CRL) 3681/2025 & CRL.M.A. 33130/2025 RAM KARAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Indora with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Advocates versus STATE N C T OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for State with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Arya, Advocate with Inspr. Sushi Sharma, PS Vijay Vihar. Mr. Juned Alam, Advocate for Pooja. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN