Dismissed

Alfred Albuquerque v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2018WP/139/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a Habeas Corpus petition filed by a husband seeking direction to produce his wife and minor daughter. The Court interviewed the wife and found she voluntarily resided with the respondents, rejecting the petition and denying a decision on visiting rights.

What did the court decide?

The petition for direction to produce the wife and minor daughter was rejected. Visiting rights are not decidable in a Habeas Corpus petition.

Alfred Albuquerque Vs Union of India and Ors. — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

58-Criwp-139-18.sxw

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 139 OF 2018

¶5

Alfred Albuquerque ..Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Satish Maneshinde a/w Ms. Anandini Fernandes and Laxmi Raman, Advocates for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Deepak Thakre, Government Pleader and Mr. J.P.Yagnik, APP for Respondent/State.

¶8

Mr. S.M. Sabrad, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶10

B. P. COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶11

DATE: 15^th JANUARY, 2018

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

1] This is a Petition for Habeas Corpus. Petitioner, who is the

¶14

husband of Julie Albuquerque, has filed the present Petition for direction to the Respondents to produce his wife Julie Albuquerque and minor daughter Makalya Albuquerque.

¶15

2] In response to the Advocate's notice issued to Respondent Nos. 3

¶16

1/3

¶17

58-Criwp-139-18.sxw

¶18

and 4, Mr. Sabrad, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the said Respondents. When the matter was called out in the morning session, he requested that the matter may be kept in Chamber at 2.45 P.M. and assured that wife of the Petitioner viz. Julie Albuquerque would remain present before the Court.

¶19

3] Today, we have heard the matter at 2.45 P.M. After Respondent No.3 came along with Julie Albuquerque, we requested the learned Counsels including our staff to go outside the Chamber, so that we can interview Julie Albuquerque.

¶20

4] We have interviewed her. Upon interviewing her, we are of the considered view that she had gone to reside with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on her own will and she has not been compelled by any one to reside with Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶21

5] Mr. Maneshinde, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, submits that, daughter Makalya is a minor daughter and atleast Petitioner must be granted some visiting rights to visit her.

¶22

2/3

¶23

58-Criwp-139-18.sxw

¶24

6] In a Habeas Corpus Petition, we cannot decide about visiting rights of the contesting parents. Petitioner, if so desires, would be at liberty to take out such proceedings as are found appropriate in law.

¶25

7] Petition is therefore rejected.

¶26

(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ) (B. R. GAVAI, J. )

¶27

3/3

Alfred Albuquerque v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alfred Albuquerque v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Freddy Havaldar Vs the Bombay St. Xaviers College Society and 3 Ors.

Kashyap Phulchand Shobnath Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Milind Bholinath Salvi and Anr. Vs the President / Chairman, Indapur Vibhag Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Indapur and Ors.

Himanshu Chaubey Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and 5 Ors.

Kalyani Sanjay Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammed Naseem Khan Vs Kasam Habib Makhnojiya and Ors.