Disposed¶11

Babli v. Satate of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Feb 2025W.P.(CRL)/457/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Babli v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.; W.P.(CRL) 457/2025; High Court of Delhi; Sanjeev Narula, J.; 11.02.2025; police protection; harassment and threats by family members; inaction on complaint to SHO P.S. Sarita Vihar; custody of minor children; mother as natural and lawful guardian; Section 6(a) Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; unlawful restraint; mandamus; writ disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of: Registry directed to correct the cause title to "Babli v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors."; State's assurance of immediate police assistance recorded; SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar directed to ensure the Petitioner takes custody of her two minor children without obstruction, escorted by the SHO or a senior officer deputed by him. ¶11

Babli Vs Satate of NCT of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to protection from alleged continuous threats, harassment and physical violence by her father (Respondent No. 2), brother (Respondent No. 3) and sister-in-law (Respondent No. 4), in view of police inaction on her complaint. +2 more

¶5

Court's answer

Addressing Prayers (b) and (d), the Court took on record the State counsel's statement that the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar has already provided the Petitioner the contact details of the SHO and the concerned Beat Constable, and that immediate assistance will be provided if she perceives any imminent threat or requires police protection.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

No specific direction is required on Prayer (a) (maintainability/territorial jurisdiction), as it is a matter of legal submission rather than a substantive relief.

¶8

Key takeaways

In the absence of the father, the mother is the natural and lawful guardian of minor children under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956; the Petitioner, as the sole surviving parent, is legally entitled to custody of her children, and their continued stay at their maternal grandfather's residence against her wishes amounts to unlawful restraint.ratio¶10
The SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar (or a senior officer deputed by him) is directed to accompany the Petitioner and ensure she is able to take custody of her children without obstruction or resistance from her family members; any attempt to unlawfully restrain the Petitioner or the children shall invite appropriate legal consequences.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court, Single Judge (Sanjeev Narula, J.), 11.02.2025 — Writ petition by Babli, a widow whose husband passed away in 2016 and who has two minor daughters aged 14 and 10 years, seeking protection from alleged continuous threats, harassment and physical violence by her father, brother and sister-in-law, and custody of her children, after no action was taken on her 29.01.2025 complaint to the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar. The Court (i) took on record the State's assurance that the SHO and Beat Constable's contact details had been provided and that immediate assistance would be rendered upon any perceived threat (Prayers (b) and (d)); (ii) held, invoking Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, that the mother, as sole surviving parent, is the natural and lawful guardian legally entitled to custody, the children's continued stay at their maternal grandfather's residence against her wishes amounting to unlawful restraint; (iii) directed the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar to ensure peaceful transfer of custody, accompanied by the SHO or a senior officer deputed by him, with any unlawful restraint inviting appropriate legal consequences; and (iv) declined to issue any specific direction on territorial jurisdiction (Prayer (a)), treating it as a legal submission rather than substantive relief. The Registry was directed to correct the cause title to "Babli v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.". Petition disposed of; exemption application CRL.M.A. 4134/2025 disposed of with exemption granted.

¶1

$~65

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 457/2025

¶4

BABLI .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Ms. Mausumi Mishra, Mr. Danish, Mr. Ajay Tiwari, Mr. Sameer Alam, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State with Ms. Priyam Aggarwal, Advocate with Insp. Niraj Kumar, PS Sarita Vihar

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 11.02.2025

¶12

CRL.M.A. 4134/2025 ( Exemption )

¶13

Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.

¶14

The Applicant shall file legible and clearer copies of exempted documents, compliant with practice rules, before the next date of hearing.

¶15

Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

¶16

W.P.(CRL) 457/2025

¶17

At the outset, it is noted that there is an error apparent in the cause title of the present case, as is being shown in the cause list. The Registry is directed to correct the cause title as “ Babli v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ”

¶18

Through the instant writ petition, the Petitioner, a widow lady whose husband passed away in 2016 seeks protection from alleged harassment and

¶19

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 13/02/2025 at 12:55:11

¶20

threats by her family members. She has two minor daughters, aged 14 and 10 years, and contends that following her husband’s demise, she was compelled to reside with her parents. However, during this period, she has allegedly been subjected to continuous threats, harassment, and physical violence at the hands of her father (Respondent No. 2), her brother (Respondent No. 3), and her sister-in-law (Respondent No. 4).

¶21

Fearing for her life and safety and that of her children, the Petitioner lodged a complaint with the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar, on 29^th January, 2025. However, no action has been taken on the said complaint.

¶22

Aggrieved by the inaction of the police, the Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶23

“To issue necessary writs, orders, or directions against the respondents thereby: -

¶24

a) That the present petition is maintainable as the petitioner is a resident of Delhi. And the cause of action arises within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.

¶25

b) to direct the Respondent No. 2-4 to cease and desist from harassing and threatening the Petitioner;

¶26

c) to direct respondent No. 2-4 to hand over the custody of the petitioner’s children to her.

¶27

d) issue a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to provide adequate protection to the Petitioner and ensure her safety and security;

¶28

e) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶29

The relief sought in Prayer (a) pertains to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition. Since this is a matter of legal submission rather than a substantive relief, no specific direction is required in this regard.

¶30

As regards Prayers (b) and (d), which stem from the Petitioner’s allegations of harassment and threats by her family members, Ms. Priyam

¶31

¶32

Aggarwal appearing for Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel for the State, submits that upon receiving the Petitioner’s complaint, the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar, has already provided the Petitioner with the contact details of the SHO and the concerned Beat Constable. She further assures the Court that if the Petitioner perceives any imminent threat or requires police protection, she may contact the police officers, and immediate assistance will be provided to ensure her and her children’s safety. The above statement is taken on record.

¶33

As regards Prayer (c), it is well settled that in the absence of the father, the mother is the natural and lawful guardian of minor children under Section 6(a) of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The Petitioner, as the sole surviving parent, is legally entitled to the custody of her children. The continued stay of the children at their maternal grandfather’s residence, against the wishes of their mother, would amount to unlawful restraint. Therefore, the SHO, P.S. Sarita Vihar, shall ensure that the Petitioner is able to take custody of her children without any obstruction, or resistance from her family members. The SHO or any other senior officer deputed by him shall accompany the Petitioner to facilitate the peaceful transfer of custody. Any attempt to unlawfully restrain the Petitioner or the children shall invite appropriate legal consequences.

¶34

With the above directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

¶35

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶36

FEBRUARY 11, 2025/ab

¶37

This is a digitally signed order.

¶38

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 13/02/2025 at 12:55:11

Babli v. Satate of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babli v. Satate of NCT of Delhi & 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

Navneet Hooda Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Stephen Brian Blair Vs State Gnct of Delhi

Rajesh Sardarmal Jain Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Chander Sain Vs State of N.C.T. of Delhi

Vinod Kumar Bindal Vs Serious Fraud Investigation Office & Anr.

Pushpa Trivedi Vs A.K Trivedi

Pankaj Goel Vs the State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors.

Ravi Kumar @ Ravi Singh & Ors. Vs State of NCT Delhi & Anr.

Navneet Hooda Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajesh Sardarmal Jain Vs the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors.

Ghanshyam @ Javed S/O Kishan Lal Vs State Nctd of Delhi

Jyoti Saxena Vs the State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Pramod Goel Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Parveen Kumar Talwar and Ors. Vs State and Anr.