Dismissed

Master Shaarav Prasad Dahapute, Thru. Father Prasad Dahapute and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Apr 2024/258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a father alleging illegal detention of his two minor children by maternal grandparents. It observed the children were in the mother's custody and directed parties to pursue custody rights under the Guardians and Wards Act.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted. Petition dismissed; parties directed to approach the High Court in pending Guardians and Wards Act proceedings.

Master Shaarav Prasad Dahapute, Thru… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:28508 Reserved on 05.04.2024 Delivered on 08.04.2024

¶3

Court No. - 12

¶4

Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 258 of 2023

¶5

Petitioner :- Master Shaarav Prasad Dahapute, Thru. Father Prasad Dahapute And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Nath Singh, Prateek Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A., Amit Kumar Singh, Siddhant Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1 . The present Habeas Corpus petition has been

¶8

filed on behalf of the petitioners through their father mainly claiming that his two children (petitioners herein) are in custody of respondent nos. 3 to 4 be secured in the interest of justice.

¶9

2 . The facts in brief are that the father of the two petitioners is married to respondent no. 5 and out of their wedlock, two children, the detenue no. 1 was born on 07.11.2008 and the detenue no. 2 was

¶10

born on 08.06.2017. It is clear that after the birth of two children, matrimonial discord arose in

¶11

¶12

between the father of the detenues and the respondent no. 5 and for all practical purposes they are staying separately. Perusal of the record reveals that litigation is going on in between the two parties for grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., application under the Domestic Violence Act instituted by the respondent no. 5, an FIR filed by the respondent no. 5 being FIR No. 175 of 2021, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section ¾ D.P. Act, at Lucknow. Similarly, a petition has been filed under Section 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act at the instance of the father of the detenues as well as divorce proceedings have been initiated at Pune (Maharashtra) by the father of the detenues. In the backdrop of the said litigation in between the parties, the present Habeas Corpus petition was filed mainly on the ground that the two children are illegally detained/confined by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, who are the maternal grand-mother and grand-father. During the course of the proceedings, an detailed order was passed on 24.08.2023 referring the parties to the Mediation

¶13

¶14

and Conciliation Centre, which are informed to have failed. This Court also recorded the statement of the detenue no. 1, wherein specifically stated that he wants to live with his mother, whereas the detenue no. 1 could not give any reply because of her tender age. This Court had also granted visitation rights to meet the detenue no. 1 and 2 to the father, however, it is informed that the visitation rights were not honored by the respondent no. 5. Subsequently, another order was passed on 09.05.2023 directing the respondent nos. 3 to 5 to produce two detenues before this Court and thereafter, yet another order was passed on 21.03.2024 directing the respondent no. 5 to appear with detenue no. 1 before this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the respondent no. 5 along with the detenue no. 1 and the father of the detenue no. 1 are present before this Court.

¶15

3 . On an informal discussion, there does not appear to be any manner in which, the father and the respondent no. 5 can arrive at any amicable

¶16

¶17

settlement. This Court also personally interacted with the detenue no. 1, who did not express any desire to stay with his father. In the light of the said, the matter is being finally decided.

¶18

4 . In the petition, it has been alleged that the detenue nos. 1 and 2 are in illegal detention by the respondent nos. 3 and 4, the maternal grand-father and grand-mother, whereas from the interaction, it is clear that both the children are in the custody of their mother, as such, the detention cannot be said to be illegal. In view thereof, the present petition cannot be sustained and is dismissed.

¶19

5 . The parties would be at liberty to agitate their rights in the pending proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act in respect of custody and visitation rights, etc. The petition lacks merits in the manner in which it has been filed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 08.04.2024 Arun

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Master Shaarav Prasad Dahapute, Thru. Father Prasad Dahapute and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Master Shaarav Prasad Dahapute, Thru. Father Prasad Dahapute and Another v. State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko

Ram Lautan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow, U.P.

Vijay Kumar Rana Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Addl. Secy. Chief Secy. Home Lko.

Deep Narain Nishad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Amit Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. of U.P. Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Mohsin Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others