Dismissed

Satyawan v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2010CRWP/205/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana entertained a Habeas Corpus petition seeking release of petitioner's two minor sons residing with their mother. Ruling that Habeas Corpus is unavailable where the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail such relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to move the appropriate court under Helsinki Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

Satyawan Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors. — Child Custody and Guardianship | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Writ Petition No. 205 of 2010 Date of Decision : February 01, 2010

Satyawan

....Petitioner

Versus

State of U.T., Chandigarh and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate

¶10

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking release of his two sons, namely, Himanshu and Harsh, born on 6.10.2003 and 30.10.2004 respectively, who, according to him, are being illegally detained by respondents No.2 and 3.

¶12

Respondent No.2 is none else but, as claimed by the petitioner, to be his wife. From the said wedlock, the aforementioned two children were born. According to the petitioner, his wife, alongwith the two children, went missing from his house in the month of October, 2006. Lateron, he learnt that his wife was being illegally detained by

¶13

Crl. Writ Petition No. 205 of 2010 -2-

¶14

her father Mauji Ram-respondent No.5. He then filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 436 of 2009 for release of his wife and children from the illegal custody of Mauji Ram and his sons. The said writ petition came up for hearing on 29.5.2009 when respondent No.2 appeared in the Court and stated that she did not want to live with her husband or her own parents. In view of the said statement, the writ petition was dismissed and respondent No.2 was allowed to go wherever she wanted.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that when he had filed the aforementioned writ petition, he had not impleaded present respondent No.3 as a party as at that time respondent No.2 was being detained by her father. Infact, even at the time when she had appeared before this Court on May 29, 2009, she had been living with respondent No.3 as his wife but without getting divorce from the petitioner. The main concern of the petitioner now in the present writ petition is regarding two children, who were sired by the petitioner from respondent No.2.

¶16

The relief sought by the petitioner in the present petition is regarding custody of the two minor children, who, admittedly, according to the petitioner, are residing with their natural mother. The writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be issued in such like circumstances, more so, when the petitioner has remedy of approaching the concerned Court under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.

¶17

Crl. Writ Petition No. 205 of 2010 -3-

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawing the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to move the appropriate Court under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, qua the relief sought by him in the present petition.

¶19

Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforementioned.

¶20

( T.P.S. MANN ) February 01, 2010 JUDGE ajay-1

Satyawan v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyawan v. Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

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

Nachhatar Singh etc. Vs State of Pb.

Maninder Singh Vs M/S Bansal Traders

Anand Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Phoola Vs State of Haryana

Ram Pal Vs Pb.State

Dev Raj etc. Vs State of Pb.Etc.