In a habeas corpus petition for the production of the petitioner's missing husband, the High Court interacted with parties in chamber. Finding no resolution, the Court disposed of the petition as prayed by the petitioner who reserved her rights.
Petition disposed of as requested by the petitioner.
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.
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MAMTA THAKURANI ..... Petitioner Through Ms.Joshini Tuli, Adv. with Mr.Ashu Kr. Sharma, Adv. along with petitioner in person.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.Dinesh Singh Chaudhary, Adv. for Mohit Rawat along with Mohit Rawat, in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
O R D E R
% 01.02.2017
By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of Mohit Rawat, her husband who is stated to be missing since 22.11.2016. The petitioner claims that the marriage between the petitioner and Mohit Rawat was solemnized on 01.06.2016. Prior thereto, the parties had a live-in relationship. As Mohit Rawat had refused to formalise the relationship, she filed a complaint pursuant to which an FIR under Section 376 IPC was registered against Mohit Rawat. Thereafter, the parties decided to get married. Consequent thereto, Mohit Rawat was acquitted by the Trial Court. It is a case of the petitioner that within one month thereafter, he left the matrimonial home which happened to be the home of petitioner’s mother.
Mohit Rawat is present in Court. He submits that on account of the conduct of the petitioner and her constant threats of sending him in jail has led to
his leaving the house. He further submits that it is not possible for him to stay with the petitioner.
We have interacted with the parties in the Chamber. However, there has been no resolution of the matter. Mohit Rawat submits that for the purposes of any notice or summons, his correct address is House No.310, Punjab Engineering College, Sector-12, Chandigarh. The petitioner submits that Mohit Rawat had married her only to escape from criminal liability and has again deceived her.
The writ petition is disposed of as requested by the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she would take recourse to such remedies as available in accordance with law.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
FEBRUARY 01, 2017/ka
W.P.(CRL) 3552/2016
2/2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ of habeas corpus should be issued for the production of the petitioner's husband who left the matrimonial home.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mamta Thakurani
State (NCT) of Delhi & Ors
G.S. Sistani
Vinod Goel
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
