Supreme Court Issues Notice To Wife Father In Law Of Dalit Man Charged With Abducting His Spouse

hear the news

The Supreme Court has issued notice to his wife and father-in-law on a petition filed by a Dalit man accused of abducting his wife. This man is accused of kidnapping a girl from an upper caste and forcing her to marry. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice JB Pardiwala agreed to make the wife and father-in-law parties in the case.

The bench said notice be issued to the newly added respondents and their reply be sought by August 22. On April 11, the court had granted relief from arrest to the man on charges of kidnapping. The bench said that the relief from arrest would continue till the next hearing.

Meanwhile, Jharkhand Police has filed a reply in the Supreme Court requesting that this person’s petition be dismissed. The Dalit man has challenged the order of the Jharkhand High Court in front of the Supreme Court in which the High Court had refused to cancel the non-bailable warrant against him.

The upper caste society is not yet ready to accept the Dalit son-in-law
Advocates Utkarsh Singh, Shivam Rajput and Suresh P appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the court. The petitioner has claimed that he has been a victim of caste prejudices and socio-administrative discrimination. The petition said that the matter makes clear that the upper caste society is not yet ready to accept the Dalit son-in-law and will go to any extent to abuse the process of law to thwart inter-caste marriages.

scuffled beat up
According to the petitioner’s lawyer Utkarsh Singh, the petitioner was assaulted. After this he fainted and his wife was forcibly taken away in the middle of the night. According to the petition, the petitioner’s wife was taken away in the presence of Himachal and UP police officials.

The man then filed a complaint about the incident with the Himachal Pradesh Police, later moved the High Court of Himachal Pradesh with a habeas corpus petition to produce his wife. Later, the Himachal Pradesh court was apprised that a case has been registered in Jharkhand against the man (the girl’s husband), her father and others on charges related to kidnapping.

On November 23, 2021, a local court in Jharkhand issued a non-bailable warrant against the man. The man then filed his anticipatory bail plea in a district court in Jharkhand, which was rejected. He later challenged it in the Jharkhand High Court but his anticipatory bail plea was also rejected.

case ignored
The petitioner, in his petition, has contended that the Jharkhand High Court had dismissed the petition without considering the misuse of law by the in-laws of the petitioner, ignoring whether the petitioner had committed any offence. He has been wrongly implicated in this case.

Now the petitioner, in his petition filed in the Supreme Court, has said that the petitioner is deeply aggrieved due to the arbitrary and unconstitutional actions of the in-laws, who have grossly misused the entire system for their own benefit and have made it equal to the laws, life and personal. deprived of the right to protection.

Expansion

The Supreme Court has issued notice to his wife and father-in-law on a petition filed by a Dalit man accused of abducting his wife. This man is accused of kidnapping a girl from an upper caste and forcing her to marry. A bench of Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice JB Pardiwala agreed to make the wife and father-in-law parties in the case.

The bench said notice be issued to the newly added respondents and their reply be sought by August 22. On April 11, the court had granted relief from arrest to the man on charges of kidnapping. The bench said that the relief from arrest would continue till the next hearing.

Meanwhile, Jharkhand Police has filed a reply in the Supreme Court requesting that this person’s petition be dismissed. The Dalit man has challenged the order of the Jharkhand High Court in front of the Supreme Court in which the High Court had refused to cancel the non-bailable warrant against him.

The upper caste society is not yet ready to accept the Dalit son-in-law

Advocates Utkarsh Singh, Shivam Rajput and Suresh P appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the court. The petitioner has claimed that he has been a victim of caste prejudices and socio-administrative discrimination. The petition said that the matter makes clear that the upper caste society is not yet ready to accept the Dalit son-in-law and will go to any extent to abuse the process of law to thwart inter-caste marriages.

scuffle struck

According to the petitioner’s lawyer Utkarsh Singh, the petitioner was assaulted. After this he fainted and his wife was forcibly taken away in the middle of the night. According to the petition, the petitioner’s wife was taken away in the presence of Himachal and UP police officials.

The man then filed a complaint about the incident with the Himachal Pradesh Police, later moved the High Court of Himachal Pradesh with a habeas corpus petition to produce his wife. Later, the Himachal Pradesh court was apprised that a case has been registered in Jharkhand against the man (the girl’s husband), her father and others on charges related to kidnapping.

On November 23, 2021, a local court in Jharkhand issued a non-bailable warrant against the man. The man then filed his anticipatory bail plea in a district court in Jharkhand, which was rejected. He later challenged it in the Jharkhand High Court but his anticipatory bail plea was also rejected.

case ignored

The petitioner, in his petition, has contended that the Jharkhand High Court had dismissed the petition without considering the misuse of law by the in-laws of the petitioner, ignoring whether the petitioner had committed any offence. He has been wrongly implicated in this case.

Now the petitioner, in his petition filed in the Supreme Court, has said that the petitioner is deeply aggrieved due to the arbitrary and unconstitutional actions of the in-laws, who have grossly misused the entire system for their own benefit and have made it equal to the laws, life and personal. deprived of the right to protection.

,

Most Popular

Most Popular