Bhawana Verma Vs the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

$~41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- W.P.(CRL) 1425/2025

BHAWANA VERMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Kawalpreet Singh, Mr. Vikas Saini, Mr. Sonu Jha, Mr. Mayank Sharma, Mr. Manish Malik, Mr. Ashish Balyan, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Madesiya and Mr. Jai Subhash Thakur, Advs.

¶5

versus

¶6

THE STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. for the State with SI Satender, PS-K.N. Katju Marg. Mr. Satyapal, Adv. for R- 3 and 4.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

¶9

O R D E R % 08.05.2025

¶10

The present writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner/mother seeking writ in the nature of habeas corpus for a direction to be issued to the Respondents to trace and produce two minor children of the Petitioner.

¶11

The children have been traced and this Court on 01.05.2025 passed the following order which reads as follows:-

¶12

“2. It is stated in the petition that the father-in-law and the motherin-law of the Petitioner have taken the children away from the

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:07:25

¶14

Petitioner and now they are denying access to the children to her. 3. Mr. Sanjay Lao, leamed Standing Counsel for the Respondent/State, submits that the Petitioner has herself given the children to the parents of her husband, a fact which is being denied by the Petitioner who is present in Court today.

¶15

6. Till the next date of hearing, it is the responsibility of the father-in-law to ensure that both the children are brought to the Petitioner/mother at her residence to meet her from 03:00 PM to 07:00 PM every day.”

¶16

The purpose of the habeas corpus having been satisfied, it is now open for the Petitioner/mother to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for taking custody of the children who are at the moment with the paternal grandparents.

¶17

This Court takes note of the submissions of the paternal grandparents that it was the parents of the children, who handed over the custody of the children, to them. 5. This Court is not making any observation on the correctness of that statement. 6. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are directed to ensure that the children are brought to the house of the Petitioner/mother on every Friday evening at 05:00 PM and the Petitioner/mother shall leave the children back to the house of the paternal grandparents at 08:00 PM in the evening on Sunday.

¶18

In the meantime, a guardianship petition bearing G.P. No. 25/2025 titled as, “Krishan Chand & Anr. vs. Parveen Kumar & Anr.” has been filed by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in the Family Court, District North, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The petition is stated to have been listed for hearing on 03.06.2025.

¶19

The Family Court is directed to ensure that the guardianship petition is decided as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:07:25

¶21

The petition, along with pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

¶22

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.

¶23

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

¶24

MAY 8, 2025/nd

¶25

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/07/2025 at 01:07:25

Bhawana Verma v. the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhawana Verma v. the State NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanofi India Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India

Tushar Kakkar & Ors. Vs the State (Govt.of N.C.T.) & Anr.

Aman @Sonu Vs State NCT of Delhi

Om Pal Singh Tomar Vs the State(Govt of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Sharad Bhargava Vs Ncb

Rajender @ Kallu Vs State Gnct of Delhi & Ors.

Narinder Singh Bogarh @ Narinder Singh Vs Union of India & Anr.

Sh Intzar & Anr. Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Union of India and Anr. Vs M/S Shatabdi Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs Lt. Governor & Ors.

Pawan Kumar Vs the State NCT of Delhi through Its SHO Ps Bhajanpura

Rakesh Vs State through SHO Ps Vijay Vihar & Ors.

M/S Contruction Indusry Development Council Vs M/S Mcm Worldwide Private Limied & Anr.

Ircon International Limited Vs Reacon Engineers (India) Pvt. Ltd.