Somprabha Rana vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 744

ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Somprabha Rana – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR Mr. Saurabh Singh, Adv. Mr. Divyansh Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Tomar, Adv. Mr. Argha Roy, Adv. Ms. Ojaswini Gupta, Adv. Ms. Ruby, Adv. Mr. Santosh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Madhurendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajiv R. Mishra, Adv. Ms. Suruchi Yadav, Adv. Mr. Yadav Narender Singh, AOR

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. This appeal arises from a very unfortunate dispute about the custody of a female child (for short ‘the child’) whose present age is two years and seven months. The mother of the child unfortunately died an unnatural death on 27th December 2022. It is alleged that the death of the mother was by hanging. The 4th respondent is the father of the child. The 2nd and 3rd respondents are the paternal grandparents of the child. The 5th respondent is the sister-in-law of the 4th respondent (his brother’s wife). The 1st to 3rd appellants are the real sisters of the deceased mother. The 4th and 5th appellants are the child's maternal grandparents, who were not the parties before the High Court. The 5th respondent is also a real sister of the child’s mother. The 5th respondent is the wife of the 4th respondent’s brother.

2. The 2nd to 4th respondents invoked the jurisdiction of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by filing a petition seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A case made out in the petition was that the 4th respondent and the mother of the child were residing in Indore, where the unnatural death of the