Dismissed

Surekha Rathi Wife of Shri Ravindra Singh D/O Late Shri Satyapal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Aug 2023HC/258/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother to produce her seven-year-old child. The Court found the father to be the legal natural guardian. The child expressed a desire to reside with the father. The petition was dismissed, but the father was directed to permit weekly visits and video calls.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the petition. Directed respondent to permit petitioner to meet corpus every week on Sundays and arrange video calls.

Surekha Rathi Wife of Shri Ravindra Singh… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023:RJ-JP:18043-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 258/2023

¶4

Surekha Rathi Wife Of Shri Ravindra Singh D/o Late Shri Satyapal Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Raja Vihar Colony, Kathaira Road, Dadari Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, (U.p.) At Present D-02- 14, Eldico Hills Side Neemrana, P.s. And Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

Superintendent Of Police, Bhiwadi (Alwar)

¶9

Station House Officer, P.s. Neemrana Police District Bhiwadi (Alwar)

¶10

The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Jaipur.

¶11

–-Non-petitioners

¶12

Ravindra Singh Son Of Shri Ranveer Singh, R/o Raja Vihar Colony, Kathaira Road, Dadari, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, (U.p.)

¶13

Devendra Singh Son Of Shri Ranveer Singh, R/o Raja Vihar Colony, Kathaira Road, Dadari, Tehsil Dadari, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, (U.p.)

¶14

----Accused/Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Gordhan Singh Fauzdar, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Asst. GA Mr. Babulal, SHO, Neemrana, District Kotputli, Behror Mr. Jagram Meena, RPS, Addl. SP, Neemrana
		Mr, Rudraksh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, Adv.

¶16

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

¶17

Order

¶18

[2023:RJ-JP:18043-DB]

[HC-258/2023]

(2 of 3)

17/08/2023

Petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of the corpus who happens to be daughter of the petitioner.

¶23

Corpus has been produced before the Court.

¶24

We have interacted with the corpus, aged seven and a half years. We have also permitted the corpus to meet the petitioner- her mother and the matter was then taken in the second round.

¶25

We have again interacted with the corpus. Corpus has clearly stated before the Court that she wants to reside with her father. However, she has also stated that if her parents stay together, it would be best for her.

¶26

We have interacted with the parties before the Court. They have shown their resentment towards an amicable settlement.

¶27

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is working in Neemrana in a Maruti Vendor Company. She is an MBA, whereas respondent No.5 is not even tenth pass and the welfare of the corpus is with her mother. It is also contended that petitioner is financially earning more than respondent No.5 and the future of the corpus is better with the petitioner. It is also contended that the corpus was taken away by the respondent No.5 without informing the petitioner.

¶28

Counsel for the respondent No.5 & 6 has opposed the petition. It is contended that the corpus called up her fatherrespondent No.5 and he informed the petitioner before taking the corpus. It is also contended that out of their wedlock, a son aged

¶29

[2023:RJ-JP:18043-DB]

¶30

[HC-258/2023]

¶31

(3 of 3)

¶32

14 years is staying with his maternal grand parents at Bharatpur. It is also contended that the corpus has been admitted to City Heart Academy, School and she is happy in school and is staying with family members, who are looking after the corpus. It is also contended that the petitioner goes out for her job and in her absence, the corpus is alone at home.

¶33

We have considered the contentions and have also considered the wish of the corpus.

¶34

Corpus has clearly stated that if she chose between her mother and father, she would prefer to go with her fatherrespondent No.5. Since corpus is aged seven and a half years, the legal natural guardian happens to be respondent No.5. Hence, we do not find any force in the petition and the same is accordingly, disposed of. Corpus is free to go with respondent No.5- her father. 10. However, it is made clear that if petitioner wants to obtain the custody of the corpus, she is free to approach the concerned Court under the Guardianship and Wards Act.

¶35

Since corpus has expressed her wish to go with respondent No.5, we deem it proper to direct the respondent No.5 to permit the petitioner to meet the corpus once every week on Sundays and also arrange for video call to talk with her mother after school hours.

¶36

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶37

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶38

chandan/6

Surekha Rathi Wife of Shri Ravindra Singh D/O Late Shri Satyapal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Rathi Wife of Shri Ravindra Singh D/O Late Shri Satyapal Singh 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

Dhanya@Dhanya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Mazhar Khan Son of Israil Khan Vs N.I.A. New Delhi

Imran Khan S/O Mohammed Sharif Khan Vs N.I.A

Vakeel Son of Pappu @ Islam Vs State of Rajasthan

Pawan Nagar S/O Shri Kanhiya Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramjani Mohammed S/O Shri Ikaramuddin Vs the State of Rajasthan