Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
S.C. Sharma, J.
Anushree Goyal —Petitioner
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.7739 of 2020
Decided on 8.8.2020
Constitution of India – Article 226 – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Section 9 – Habeas Corpus Petition for production of child in Court – Petitioner is mother of child – Husband and wife are having matrimonial dispute between them – Petitioner has stated that child is a very young child and old grand parents are senior citizens, they are not able to look after infant child and in spite of repeated requests of petitioner, they have not even permitted petitioner to meet her child – Child has been produced before this Court – Child is present in Court room and child has interacted with mother and he is quite comfortable with mother – Husband might have obtained injunction against wife in respect of domestic violence but it is certainly not an order in respect of custody of child and so called civil protection order does not help grand parents in any manner – Writ petition for issuance of a writ in nature of Habeas Corpus under Article 226 of Constitution of India in peculiar facts and circumstances of case is certainly maintainable – Otherwise also, keeping in view welfare of child and other factors including interaction with child, child has to be in custody of mother – Power of Attorney does not create any right in favour of respondents – Court will not throw away petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction or on the ground of alternative remedy available under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Writ Petition allowed. (Paras 4, 7, 10, 15, 17 and 22)
Result: Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER
S.C. Sharma, J.—The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents No.1 to 5 to produce respondent No.6 before this Court who is allegedly in illegal detention of respondents No.4 and 5. It has been stated in the writ petition that a marriage took place between Shri Ankit Agrawal and the petitioner on 13/05/2013 at Indore. It was an arranged marriage and the petitioner went to United States of America (Columbus) along with her husband. A child namely Arjun Agrawal was born on 01/01/2018 in America.
2. The petitioner has further stated that the husband as well as respondents No.4 and 5 (the in-laws) made her life miserable and they committed cruelty. She has also stated that she was assaulted on number of occasions, however, as it was a matrimonial dispute she lived with a hope that time will resolve the dispute and continued with her husband in America.
3. The petitioner has further stated that her husband finally has obtained some ex-parte order from some American Court and the petitioner was restrained from living in the house belonging to the husband and in those circumstances, she left with no other option except to come back Indore and to reside with her parents on 29/12/2019. She has also lodged a complaint with Police Station – Mahila Thana, Indore on 16/03/2020, however, she came to know that her husband came down from America and left the minor child, who is 02 years in age with her in-laws.
4. The petitioner has further stated that child is a very young child and the old grand parents are senior citizens, they are not able to look after the infant child and inspite of the repeated requests of the petitioner, they have not even permitted the petitioner to meet her child. In those circumstances, the petitioner has filed this present petition. The matter was listed before this Court on 04/06/2020 and the following order was passed:-
“Parties through their counsel.
Shri Amol Shrivastava, learned government advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
Let notice be issued to the respondent Nos.4 and 5 by e- mail, fax as well as by any other alternative mode.
In addition, the petitioner shall also be free to serve the respondent Nos.4 and 5 by e-mail, fax or by any other alternative mode.
It has been stated by the petitioner that she is mother of the respondent No.6 – Arjun Agarwal, who is aged about 2 years and being the mother, she is her natural guardian and in those circumstances, present habeas corpus petition has been filed.
The Superintendent of Police, Indore is directed to keep the corpus present before this Court on 08.06.2020.
It is needless to mention that the Superintendent of Police, Indore shall observe all the required protocol while bringing the corpus to this Court. The matter involves the custody of a minor child aged about 2 years and therefore, the Superintendent of Police, Indore shall take all due precautions in the matter.
The matter is being heard through video conferencing, however, as this is a habeas corpus petition involving the minor child aged about 2 years, for this particular matter, the Superintendent of Police, Indore shall be permitted to enter the premises on 08.06.2020, which is prohibited under the complete lock-down.
The respondent Nos.4 and 5 are also permitted to enter the premises along with the child.
The petitioner shall also be permitted to enter the premises and as an exceptional cases, the hearing of this matter shall take place in Court No.13 and the Registry shall ensure that all the norms relating to social distancing prescribed by Government of India / State of Madhya Pradesh are followed in the matter.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated before this Court that there is every possibility of sending the minor child back to the America as his father is residing in Ame
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
