Advocates:
['Saroj Kumar', 'RAM BALAK MAHTO', '', 'HEMANT KUMAR KARN', 'SANJEEV VERMA', 'GIRISH PANDEY', 'NIMISHA KUMARI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Criminal Writ No.600 of 2012

======================================================

Alok Kumar S/O Balram Lal Karn Resident Of Village- Bhojpandaul, P.S.-

Bisfi, District- Madhubani, At Present Residing At House Of Ramkarn

Singh Mohalla- Mainpur, P.S.- Pataliputra, District- Patna

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Home Commissioner Government Of Bihar Patna

3. The Director General Of Police-Cum- Inspector General Of Police Bihar,

Patna

4. The Collector Madhepura, Distt,- Madhepura

5. The Superintendent Of Police Distt.- Madhepura

6. The Officer Incharge Police Station Murliganj, District- Madhepura

7. Bibhakar Prasad Das S/O Late Tarni Prasad Das Resident Of Village-

Rampur Dinapatti, P.S.- Muraliganj, District- Madhepura

8. Rakesh Ranjan S/O Sri Bibhakar Prasad Das Resident Of Village-

Rampur Dinapatti, P.S.- Muraliganj, District- Madhepura, At Present

Residing At Khanna Building Behind Bit Extention, Near Urmila Enclave,

Old, Khatal, Lalpur, Ranchi (Jharkhand)

.... .... Respondents

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deo Narayan Yadav, Sr.Adv.

Mr. Saroj Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Sunil Kumar Karn, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Hemant Kumar Kanu, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR

TRIVEDI

ORAL ORDERp

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA)

7

25-09-2012

Heard counsel for the parties.

Pursuant to the earlier order of this Court dated

14.9.2012 and 21.9.2012 which for sake, of clarity is quoted

hereinbelow:-

"14.9.2012 Heard counsel for the parties.

In this writ application though a prayer has

been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of

habeas corpus for release of a minor girl who is the

daughter of petitioner but from the pleadings on record

it is apparent the dispute in hand actually relates to

Patna High Court CR. WJC No.600 of 2012 (7) dt.25-09-2012

2

custody of Miss Astha a minor girl who happens to be

the daughter of the petitioner and for the present after

the death of her mother i.e. wife of the petitioner is

living with her Nana(Maternal Grandfather). There are

infact allegations and counter allegations as against the

petitioner and the Respondent no. 8 as can be found

from the perusal of the writ application and the counter

affidavit of Respondents which have been also

reiterated by the counsels in their submissions. One

thing however is clear that the minor girl is aged about

six years and in view of Section-13 of the Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act-1956 her welfare has

to be primarily taken into consideration as that would

be of paramount importance for the deciding the issue

of custody of the child.

Mr.

Amit

Srivastava,

learned

counsel

appearing on behalf of maternal grandfather i.e.

Respondent no. 8 has offered to produce the minor

girl, Astha, in this court but then Mr. Deo Narayan

Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner wants a

week's time to consult the petitioner as to whether he

would like his daughter to be produced before this

Court.

That being so, put up this case on next Friday

i.e. 21.9.2012."

"21.09.2012 Heard counsel for the parties.

Pursuant to the previous order dated

14.9.2012 Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the

petitioner, in presence of the petitioner, ubmits

that the child offered to be produced by

respondent no.8 should be produced before this

Court.

Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, learned

counsel, who is Advocate on record on behalf of

respondent no.8, submits that the child, the

daughter of the petitioner, will be produced before

this Court on Tuesday i.e. 25th September, 2012.

That being so, list this case on

25.