Disposed

Mukesh Singh Son of Nand Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Jan 2025HC/424/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought production of minor children and wife under habeas corpus alleging illegal custody by Respondent No.6. Court found children wished to stay with mother. Petitioner unable to care for them due to separation and employment. Petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus petition disposed. Custody of children remains with petitioner's wife. Petitioner granted visitation rights once every Sunday.

Mukesh Singh Son of Nand Singh Vs State of… — Child Custody and Guardianship | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:1922-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 424/2024

¶4

Mukesh Singh Son Of Nand Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of C-10, Sudarshanpura Industrial Area, 22 Godown, Jaipur. At Present Resident Of P-33 Shivraj Colony-II, Madrampura Colony, P S Muhana, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking, Unit Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

Station House Officer (Sho), Of Police Station Muhana, Jaipur City (South) (Raj.).

¶12

Hari Mohan Meena Son Of Kamlesh Meena, Resident Of Plot No. 13, Sanjay City, Jotada Wala, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Mathur, Adv. For Corpus-Wife : Mr. Hemant Gajraj, Adv. For Respondent No.6 : Mamraj Jat, Adv. for Mr. O.P. Jhajharia, Adv. For State : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. GA, Ms. Neha Goyal, Adv. Mr. Chhagan Lal, SI, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur

¶15

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

15/01/2025

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:1922-DB]

[HC-424/2024]

Petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of the corpus who happens to be wife and minor children of the petitioner.

¶22

The allegation in the petition was that respondent No.6 has taken away the corpus and minor children. Notices were issued to respondent No.6. The custody of the children was handed over to the petitioner for twelve days on 03.01.2025 and after expiry of custody period, children have been produced by the petitioner today in the Court.

¶23

We have interacted with the children. Children have stated that they wish to stay with their mother and are not willing to go with the petitioner.

¶24

Respondent No.6- Hari Mohan Meena has stated before the Court that till the matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife is settled, he will not have any relationship with the wife of the petitioner and his children.

¶25

It is also revealed during hearing that petitioner is living separately. His parents have expired and his sister and brother are married and they are living with their respective families. In fact, there is no one at petitioner’s home to look after the children.

¶26

Wife of petitioner has informed the Court that presently she is residing with her brother at Bhiwani.

¶27

We have considered the contentions.

¶28

Wife of petitioner is major and she has already filed an application for divorce against her husband on the ground of cruelty. She is not in any illegal detention and is free to live at the place of her choice.

[2025:RJ-JP:1922-DB]

[HC-424/2024]

(3 of 3)

As far as custody of the children is concerned, petitioner is not in a position to keep the children, as he is working and there is no one in the family to look after the children. Children have also stated that they do not wish to go with petitioner.

¶33

Consequently, we deem it proper to dispose of the habeas corpus petition. The custody of the children shall remain with the mother i.e. wife of petitioner. However, wife of petitioner has to intimate the petitioner about change in address, if she shifts from Bhiwani to any other place.

¶34

Petitioner will have visitation rights and would be free to meet his children once every Sunday after intimating his wife. 11. We also deem it proper to intimate S.P., GRP, Ajmer to ensure and keep a track on the working of respondent No.6- Hari Mohan Meena.

¶35

A copy of this order be sent to S.P., GRP, Ajmer.

¶36

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶37

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶38

CHANDAN /54

Mukesh Singh Son of Nand Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Singh Son of Nand 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

Smt. Asha Jain W/O Shri Dilip Kumar Jain, Vs Kanaram, Ias, Director

State of Rajasthan Vs Ramkaran S/O Hajara

Smt. Shirley James W/O Sh. Harman James Vs Kanaram, Ias, Director

State of Rajasthan Vs Siyaram Son of Ramkaran

Ajay Sharma @Mitthu @ Pramendra S/O Shri Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Arvind Kumar Vaishnav Son of Shri Gopi Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan