Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Suresh Kumar Kait, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Meena Devi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State Gnct of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(Crl.) 639 of 2024
Decided On : 23-02-2024
Habeas Corpus - Matrimonial Dispute - Court issues directions to enable the resumption of married life
Fact of the Case:
The wife of petitioner No.2 left her matrimonial house along with her two minor children and is staying at her parental house due to adjustment issues with her mother-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court interacted with the parties and directed the relatives of the wife of petitioner No.2 to not visit the matrimonial home without consent, enabling the couple to resume their married life.
Issues: Petition under Article 226 seeking issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to produce and release children of petitioner No.2.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the willingness of both parties to resolve their issues and resume their married life, as well as the assurance from the relatives of the wife of petitioner No.2 to not cause hindrance.
Final Decision: The present petition is disposed of with directions to the relatives of the wife of petitioner No.2 to not visit the matrimonial home without consent, allowing the couple to resume their married life.
JUDGMENT (Oral)
1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking, inter alia, issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to respondent to produce and release children (Master X and Ms. Y) of petitioner No.2.
2. Notice issued.
3. Mr. Sanjay Lao, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State.
4. Master X and Ms. Y have been produced in the Court today by their mother.
5. It is not in dispute that on 06.01.2024, wife of petitioner No.2 left her matrimonial house along with her two minor children, i.e. Master X (aged 6 years) and Miss Y (aged 3? years) and now she is staying at her parental house at R-50/IR Extension, Bahadurgarh, Delhi.
6. We have interacted with the parties in chamber.
7. During interaction, wife of petitioner No.2 submits that due to some adjustment issues, she had left her matrimonial house and started staying with her parents. According to her, there are some issues with her mother-in-law regarding sharing the common kitchen and if her kitchen is separated, she would have no problem in returning with her husband.
8. The petitioner No. 2 has assured this Court that the misunderstanding between them would be sorted out and he is also willing to live with his wife and assures to keep her happy. The wife of the petitioner No. 2 is also ready to go with him and has assured that she will also stay happily and would try to resolve all the issues.
9. The petitioner No.2 has also informed this Court that the relatives of his wife had come to his place earlier and had misbehaved with his mother and family members and to said effect, he had made a complaint to the police but no action was taken and, therefore, he had to file a complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned court which is pending adjudication.
10. The relatives of wife of petitioner No.2, are present in person who submit that they would not cause any hindrance in their married life.
11. In the light of aforenoted facts, we hereby direct the relatives of the wife of petitioner No.2 to not visit matrimonial home of the parties without the consent of petitioner No.2 or his wife so as to enable them to resume their married life.
12. With directions as aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of.
A Habeas Corpus petition regarding a missing spouse and children is maintainable for discovery and safety, but the Court's jurisdiction is limited to locating them and does not extend to adjudicating....
The expressed desire of the wife to reside with her husband and the absence of objection from her parents influenced the court's decision in allowing the habeas corpus petition.
The court emphasized personal liberty and the individual's choice in residence, allowing a married woman to live with her spouse against parental concerns.
The court emphasized that the issue of custody in the context of matrimonial disputes should be addressed through the Family Court.
The court's decision was based on the voluntary statement of the wife, indicating that she was not being illegally detained or kidnapped.
The court prioritized the well-being of the minor child by permitting visitation rights to the petitioner as an interim measure, without deciding on custody.
An adult and married individual has the right to make their own decision regarding their living arrangements.
The autonomy and consent of a major individual in matters of marriage and living arrangements should be respected.
The court prioritized the expressed wishes of the wife, who was of legal age, and emphasized the role of the police in ensuring the safety of the couple.
The court upheld the Settlement Agreement and directed the parties to abide by its terms.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
