Disposed

Amit Kumar v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC3 May 2017W.P.(CRL)/1327/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Habeas Corpus for his minor wife's release from police custody. Court noted conflicting birth certificates and a recent order by the Senior Chief Judicial Magistrate granting custody to parents. Court held no further orders are called for as the petitioner is directed to approach the competent court regarding the Magistrate's order.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; petitioner directed to approach competent court regarding Magistrate's order if aggrieved.

Amit Kumar Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2017)

¶1

$~43

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 1327/2017

¶4

AMIT KUMAR ..... Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr Vijay Kumar and Mr Pankaj Kumar, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR

¶8

..... Respondent

¶9

Through: Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal), Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Mr Tushar Sannu and Ms Smriti Dutta, Advs. for State Inspector Dheeraj Singh, PS Narela

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

% 03.05.2017

¶14

Issue notice. Mr Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the State.

¶15

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of Sarita whom he claims to have married on 23.03.2017. According to the petitioner, Sarita is major. He claims that her date of birth is 01.01.1998. Mr Mehra has tendered the Status Report in the Court today which is taken on record. Along with the Status Report, several documents have been annexed. It appears that there are two certificates issued by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of Sarita, one of which records the

¶16

date of birth as 01.01.1998 and the other as 07.04.2000. The statement of Sarita has been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein, she has stated that the petitioner did not exercise any force in removing her from parental custody and she has gone to the petitioner with her own free will and accord. She has further stated that she wishes to reside with the petitioner. Also annexed, is an order dated 04.04.2017 passed by Senior Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, whereby the custody of Sarita has been granted to her parents on finding that she is a minor. In the face of the order dated 04.04.2017, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are called for in the present petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 04.04.2017, passed by the learned Senior Chief Judicial Magistrate, it is for the petitioner to take appropriate remedial steps before the Competent Court.

¶17

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶18

VIPIN SANGHI, J

¶19

DEEPA SHARMA, J

¶20

MAY 03, 2017 bg

Amit Kumar v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Kumar v. the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

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

Chetan Lal & Anr. Vs State (Gnct of Delhi) & Ors.

Vijay & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Manmohan Chopra Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Shiv Kumar & Ors. Vs Ravinder Kumar & Ors.

Mohd. Ilyas Vs State & Anr.

Vikram @ Aman Vs State

Sanjeet Vs State & Ors.

Aditya Garg Vs Union of India & Anr.

Arun Pal Singh Vs the Union of India & Ors.

Ashwani Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Mahesh Kumar Vs State & Ors.

North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs Devender Singh (Mali)

North Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs Virender Singh

L.N Yadav Vs Union of India and Anr.