Singh v Prasad [2007] FJHC 141; Civil Action 0010.2007 (28 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
At Suva
Civil Jurisdiction

CIVIL ACTION NO. 0010 OF 2007

BETWEEN

RAJEND SINGH
Applicant

AND

NARENDRA PRASAD
& ANOTHER
Respondents

Counsel: Mr. R. Prakash for the Applicant
Ex-parte Application.

Date of Hearing: 27^th February, 2007
Date of Decision: 27^th February, 2007
Date of Reasons: 28^th February, 2007

RULING

[1] This is an ex-parte application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Subjiciendum. I have before me the ex-parte Notice of Motion for leave to issue the writ supported by an affidavit of Rajend Singh, both filed on 27^th of February.

[2] In essence what he states is that he met a young woman at his place of work and they fell in love. She accepted his marriage proposal, but her family refused to allow it. The father assaulted her. Shortly afterwards her father arranged a marriage for her with another man and legal and religious ceremonies have been performed in Fiji. The husband, the second respondent, is apparently resident in the United States of America. The applicant is concerned that she has been held against her will, forced to marry and will leave with her husband for that country soon.

[3] Rajend Singh states that the woman concerned had made it clear that she did not wish to go through with the ceremony of marriage, that she was required to do so by her father and she is deeply unhappy. The applicant's last communication with her was seven days ago by telephone when she made two calls to him. He states that she was crying and did not want to go through with the wedding ceremony or live together with the second respondent as husband and wife.

[4] I was informed from the bar table that it is not likely she will be leaving the jurisdiction in the very near future. The applicant believes that she is being held by her father and her husband against her will.

[5] I have refused the application. There is nothing apart from the applicant's word to support what he says. There is concern that he might be a "jilted lover". The woman is 21 years of age. She had been in temporary employment as an accounts clerk at the time the applicant met her. There is a photograph of her attached to the affidavit. She is wearing jeans and a top. There is a picture of the applicant standing next to her. I have been supplied with copies of their birth certificates which shows that she is 21 years of age and he is 25. The second respondent, according to the face of the marriage certificate, is also 25 years of age.

[6] Applications for Writs of Habeas Corpus are governed by Order 54 High Court Rules. Rule 2(1) states,

"The court or Judge to whom an application under Rule 1 is made ex-parte may make an order forthwith for the writ to issue, or may -

(a) When the application is made to a Judge otherwise than in court, direct that an originating summons for the writ be issued, or that an application therefor be made by originating motion;

(b) When the application is made to Court, adjourn the application so that notice thereof may be given".

[7] In announcing my decision on the 27^th of February concerning the ex-parte application I directed, under Order 54(2)(1)(a) that an application could be made by originating motion.

(R.J. Coventry)

JUDGE