Dismissed

Piyush Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2022WP/2290/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of Habeas Corpus and production of minor children under Section 482 CrPC, alleging three-year denial of access. The Court held that since custody and visitation disputes are pending before the Family Court, the High Court will not interfere, disposing of the petition while directing the Family Court to address any genuine grievance.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without issuing any writ or direction, leaving the matter to the Family Court.

Piyush Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

26-wp-2290-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2290 OF 2022

¶3

Piyush Singh … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents

¶6

Ms. Abha Singh alongwith Mr. Suhail Mhasvadkar instructed by Aditya Pratap Law Offices for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mrs. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr. Ashok Yadav for Respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND N.R. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 12 JULY 2022

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

. By this Petition, the Petitioner has sought the following

¶11

reliefs :

¶12

“(A) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus or any other writ, order or direction as, may be deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court, AND/OR by exercise its inherent jurisdiction u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the Respondents herein to produce the minor son and minor daughter namely Vikramaditya Singh and Simran Singh, before this Hon’ble Court and ;

Kanchan P Dhuri

1 / 3

26-wp-2290-2022.odt

(B) To direct the Respondent No.3 to satisfy this Hon’ble Court that the illegal detention and unjust refusal to permit the Petitioner to meet minor children is not illegal.”

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the custody of the children with Respondent No.3 be treated as illegal detention, since the Petitioner has not been given access to meet the children for a period of three years. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in light of this position, the Court may use its extra ordinary jurisdiction to issue the Writ of Habeas Corpus.

¶18

That in matters pertaining to the custody of children, in certain circumstances, the high prerogative writ of habeas corpus can be issued is without any doubt, however, it is not in every case. The parties in the present Petition are already before the Family Court where orders are passed. The position is admitted in the Petition itself that even the issue of visitation rights is under consideration before the Family Court and orders have been passed. As regard violation of the orders of the Family Court as alleged, the Petitioner can always bring it to the notice of the Family Court where the said issue of visitation rights is pending. This grievance of the Petitioner that he is not allowed to meet the children for a long period of time can be brought to the notice of the Family Court. By-passing the Family

Kanchan P Dhuri

2 / 3

26-wp-2290-2022.odt

Court proceedings and starting the parallel proceedings would not be proper.

¶23

Therefore, while we dispose of this Petition keeping the rights of the parties open to be agitated in the Family Court where dispute is pending, we do observe that if in fact the case of the Petitioner-father that he is not allowed to meet the children for a period of three years, is found to be true, the Family Court will no doubt look into grievance and if necessary take up the matter for early hearing, subject to earlier time bound directions and commitments.

¶24

5. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

( N.R. BORKAR, J. ) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J. )

¶26

Digitally signed KANCHAN by KANCHAN PRASHANT PRASHANT DHURI DHURI Date: 2022.07.15 14:33:02 +0530

¶27

Kanchan P Dhuri

¶28

3 / 3

Piyush Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piyush Singh v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Bhausaheb Shivaji Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Roshan Digmbar Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Ratilal Vanigota Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Tushar Suresh Pathare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ravindra Naval Mahajan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Sadashiv Sapkal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.