Dismissed

Jasmeet Sodhi S/O Sh. Tejinder Singh Sodhi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jun 2023HC/146/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas Corpus petition, the father sought custody of minor children held by the mother. The bench interacted with the children who preferred staying with their mother. Dismissing the HC petition as not involving illegal detention, the court permitted monthly visits and telephonic communication for the father subject to the children's willingness.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to meet children twice a month on Sundays and telephonically communicate, subject to children's willingness after intimating the mother; dismissed petition.

Jasmeet Sodhi S/O Sh. Tejinder Singh Sodhi… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 146/2023

¶3

Jasmeet Sodhi S/o Sh. Tejinder Singh Sodhi, R/o C-160, Bahu Bali Path, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur-302019, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶7

The Director General Of Police (Dgp) Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶8

The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur (East), Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶9

The Station House Officer, Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶10

Smt. Priyanka Sodhi W/o Jasmeet Sodhi D/o Col. Y.d. Khanna, Current Address-Unknown, Correspondence Address, B-9, Sector 4, Defence Colony, Dehradun, Uttarakhand

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent No.5	: :	Mr. S.S. Hora, Ms. Shefali Vohra and Mr. Vikram Pratap Singh Mr. Prateek Kasliwal Mr. Shubham Bhati
For State	:	Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Asstt. Govt. Adv.
		Mr. Mukesh, C.I., Mr. Moolchand, A.S.I., Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur (East), present-in- person.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

Order

02/06/2023

[HC-146/2023]

(2 of 5)

Petitioner-Jasmeet Sodhi has preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of the corpuses, who are minor children of the petitioner.

¶19

It is contended by counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner being the father is the natural guardian and is entitled to the custody of the children, as children are above age of 5 years. However, Respondent No.5, mother of the corpuses, without informing the petitioner has taken away the children. It is also contended that petitioner did not know the whereabouts of the children. It is also contended that Respondent No.5 has also filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 at Dehradun, wherein prayer is made that petitioner herein, be directed to provide permanent residence at the shared household at Jaipur. It is argued by counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is ready to provide separate residence at Jaipur and the custody of the corpuses should be handed over to him.

¶20

Alternatively, it is also contended that corpuses are now attending a summer camp and there are vacations, therefore, the custody of the corpuses may be divided, so that father may also have the custody of his children for few days. 4. It is argued that the welfare of the children is of paramount importance. There being allegation of adultery against the Respondent No.5, the welfare of the children would be with the petitioner. It is also contended that petitioner has enough means to look-after the children. They were studying in a reputed school and the children were taken away without informing the petitioner, therefore, welfare of the children is with the petitioner.

¶21

(3 of 5) [HC-146/2023]

¶22

Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in “ Rajeswari “Chandrasekar Ganesh vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. ” (2022 SCC OnLine SC 885); “ Rohith Thammana Gowda vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. ” ( 2022 SCC OnLine SC 937); “ Elizabeth Dinshaw vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Anr.” (1987) 1 SCC 42; “ Gippy Arora vs. State of Punjab & Ors. ” MANU/PH/2075/2008; “ Manyata Avinash Dolani vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. ” MANU/GJ/2583/2022; “ Kiran Chawa vs. Usha Kiran Anne & Ors. ” MANU/TN/0008/2023 and “ Neha vs. State of Haryana ” MANU/PH/1144/2020.

¶23

Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.5 has opposed the present habeas corpus petition. It is contended that Respondent No.5 has filed a case under the Domestic Violence Act at Dehradun. Petitioner was knowing the fact that corpuses are residing at Dehradun, still he has filed petition in Jaipur. It is also contended that petitioner has also filed petition for divorce before the Family Court at Jaipur. Petitioner has not filed any application for the custody of the children.

¶24

It is contended that the Respondent No.5 has taken up job in the same school, in which, her children are studying at Dehradun.

¶25

We have considered the contentions.

¶26

Corpuses have been produced before the Court. We have separately interacted with the corpuses, petitioner, Respondent No.5 and have also interacted with the petitioner and Respondent No.5, together. Thereafter, we have again interacted with the corpuses.

¶27

[HC-146/2023]

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

From interaction, it is revealed that the corpuses are happy with their mother and with their school and they do not wish to go with petitioner. The elder corpus is aged 12 years and the younger corpus is aged 8 years. The Respondent No.5 has clearly stated that false allegations have been levelled against her and she would be contesting the case of divorce. Be that as it may, the fact is that petitioner has not filed any Petition for custody of the children. At this stage the Court is only required to see whether children are in an illegal detention. Both the children have clearly stated before the Court that they want to stay with their mother, are happy with their mother and they do not wish to go with their father. Both the children understand their welfare and are happy with their school, in which they are studying.

¶30

We are of the considered view that proper course available to the petitioner is to approach the Competent Court for custody of the children, hence, we are not inclined to entertain the present habeas corpus petition, as we do not consider the custody to be an illegal custody.

¶31

Prayer of the petitioner that he be provided to share the period of holidays, cannot be accepted, for the very reason that children have clearly stated before us that they do not wish to go with their father.

¶32

It is informed by Respondent No.5 that she has always permitted the petitioner to communicate with the corpuses and that she would not create any hindrance, if the petitioner wants to communicate with the corpuses. On interaction with the Respondent No.5 and corpuses, it is also revealed that Respondent

¶33

[HC-146/2023]

¶34

(5 of 5)

¶35

No.5 always asked the corpuses to communicate with the petitioner, but the corpuses themselves refused.

¶36

However, taking note of the fact that petitioner as a father has a right to meet and communicate with his children, we deem it proper to permit the petitioner to meet the corpuses, twice every month on Sunday, after intimating Respondent No.5. We also permit petitioner to telephonically communicate with the corpuses, subject to their willingness.

¶37

The present Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly, disposed. 16. Petitioner was directed to deposit a demand draft of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn in favour of the Respondent No.5, Office is directed to hand over the same to Respondent No.5.

¶38

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶39

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶40

Amit/1

Jasmeet Sodhi S/O Sh. Tejinder Singh Sodhi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasmeet Sodhi S/O Sh. Tejinder Singh Sodhi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ishwar @ Kankata S/O Shri Hargyan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Santu S/O Maniram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ved Rathore S/O Shri Harikishan Rathore Vs State of Rajasthan

State Vs Khayali

State of Vs Sultan S/O Ramlal Bheel

Satyanarayan Bagda S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan