Petitioner sought habeas corpus for custody of her two adult daughters. The Court dismissed the petition as misconceived, noting daughters are major, financially independent, and do not wish to contact the mother. No case of illegal custody was made out.
Petition dismissed as not maintainable for writ of habeas corpus.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
wp.1062-2011
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2011
Mrs. Parvinder Kaur
..Petitioner.
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
..Respondents.
Mr. G.B. Pawar, for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr. M.A. Choudhari, for Respondent no.3.
CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ.
AUGUST 03, 2011.
P.C.:
India, prays for writ of habeas corpus or any order in the like nature so as
to seek the custody of the petitioner’s daughters Miss. Chasmita and Miss.
Dakshita.
2
wp.1062-2011
3
wp.1062-2011
dismissed as such.
(U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a case for habeas corpus custody of her adult daughters.
Whether a child custody petition filed under Article 226 is maintainable when daughters are major and employed.
Whether there is illegal custody of the daughters by the father in the face of their expressed desire.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Parvinder Kaur
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent no.3
B. H. MARLAPALLE
U.D. SALVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
