Dismissed

Nikita D/O Late Shri Mukesh Mittal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Jan 2023HC/5/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by the mother seeking custody of her three-and-a-half-year-old child, holding that no case of illegal detention was made out as the child was in the lawful custody of the father, and the matter should be decided by the Family Court.

What did the court decide?

None; the petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Nikita D/O Late Shri Mukesh Mittal Vs State… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5/2023

¶3

Nikita D/o Late Shri Mukesh Mittal, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Kekri, Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶9

S.h.o. Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶10

Amit Goyal Son Of Kailash Chand Goyal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Neminath Mandir Ki Gali, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶11

Kailash Chand Goyal Son Of Not Known, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Neminath Mandir Ki Gali, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶12

Rajesh Goyal Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Goyal, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Neminath Mandir Ki Gali, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, G.A.-cum-AAG

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

¶16

Judgment / Order

¶17

04/01/2023

¶18

The petitioner is mother of the corpus, aged three and a half years. The corpus is staying alongwith Respondent No.5 who is father of the corpus and other respondents who are paternal relations.

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[HC-5/2023]

¶21

The case of petitioner is that she was preparing for REET Examination at Jaipur and later on, when she wanted to meet the child, she was disallowed by the private respondents. Since she is natural guardian of the corpus, aged three and a half years, the respondents be directed to hand over the custody of the corpus to the petitioner.

¶22

The application does not disclose any specific date when the minor was forcefully taken away from the custody of the petitioner rather the petition discloses case of normal and natural custody of the child with the father. If the petitioner wants custody of the child, she may bring proper process before the Family Court having jurisdiction.

¶23

Since no case of illegal detention is made out, this habeas corpus petition stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

¶24

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

ARTI SHARMA /86

Nikita D/O Late Shri Mukesh Mittal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikita D/O Late Shri Mukesh Mittal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Badri Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Sharma @ Patel S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishal Sharma Son of Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunita W/O Shri Syochand Vs State of Rajasthan

Shadaab Ahmed S/O Altaf Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Majid S/O Shri Asrar Ahamd Vs the State of Rajasthan