SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- N. Santosh Hegde, Mr. B.P. Singh and Mr. S.B. Sinha, JJ.

Writ Petition(Crl.) No. 233/2004. D/d. 3.3.2005.

Dr. Sudesh Jale - Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Mr. Naveen Kumar Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- Mr. R.K. Jain, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Srinivasan, Mr. Mahabir singh, Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. Nikhil Jain, Advocates.

Constitution of India, Articles 21 and 32 - Personal liberty of a married woman - Petitioner-Lady being afforded counselling by marriage counsellor and police protection, expressed her desire to live with her husband expressing also her apprehension regarding her and her husband's safety - Police directed to give special attention to their safety - Other necessary direction also given in view of safety to couple regarding the transfer of their working place to any other safe place - Earlier order restraining parents and relatives of wife intimidating her or her husband in any manner to be continued.

[Para 5]

ORDER

N. Santosh Hegde, J. - UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following.

2. A letter written by the petitioner herein to the Hon. the Chief Justice of India was treated as a writ petition and posted before us for its consideration.

3. Having perused the petition, we had directed the respondent-parents of the petitioner to produce her, namely Dr. Sudesh Jale before us on 16.11.2004, pursuant to which Dr.Sudesh Jale was produced before this Court. On 1st of February, 2005, having heard the parties, we consider it in the interest of Dr.Sudesh Jale that she be counselled under the supervision of Mrs. Sreerupa Mitra Chaudhury.

4. After counselling on 2nd of March, 2005 (yesterday), Dr.Sudesh Jale met us in the chamber and gave a letter which was also signed in our presence wherein she has expressed her desire to live with her husband. She has also expressed certain apprehension in regard to her as well as her husband's safety. More so in the background of the fact that her husband is working in a Government Hospital at Rohtak as a doctor.

5. Having considered the facts of this case and having heard Dr.Sudesh Jale, we accept her desire and permit her to go with her husband. We also noticed the apprehension expressed by her. Therefore, we direct the Superintendent of Police, Rohtak to give special attention to their safety. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, we also recommend to the Govt. of Haryana that in the event of Dr.Rajesh Jale working in Rohtak seeking a transfer either to Gurgaon or Faridabad which request may be considered sympathetically on humanitarian grounds for the sake of the safety of Dr.Rajesh Jale and Dr.Sudesh Jale. In the event of said Dr.Jale being posted in Gurgaon or Faridabad or any other safe place the local police will give special attention to their safety.

6. At the time when we directed counselling of Dr.Sudesh Jale, we issued an order restraining the parents and relatives of Dr.Sudesh Jale from contacting her without her consent or in any manner intimidating her or her husband. The said injunction will continue.

7. The letter submitted by Dr.Sudesh Jale shall be kept in a sealed cover in the file.

We record our appreciation of the assistance rendered by Mrs. Sreerupa Mitra Chaudhury, and her organisation and we request the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to "Sudinalay Rehabilitation Centre, Home for Women and Children", Municipal Community Centre, Sunlight Colony, Part II, New Delhi. A copy of this order will be handed over to Mrs. Sreerupa Mitra Chaudhury. so that she can contact SCLSC for receiving the said amount.

8. List this matter for further orders on 10th of May, 2005. On that day both Dr.Sudesh Jale as well as Dr.Rajesh Jale shall be present in the Court.

.