Dismissed

Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria v. the State of Rajasthan

Supreme Court12 Feb 20252025 INSC 1962025 INSC 196

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition wherein the petitioner alleged humiliation in open court due to police statements regarding her marital status. The Court held the grievance misconceived, noted the primary issue was resolved when the missing person returned home, and dismissed the subsequent writ petitions and this SLP as without merit.

What did the court decide?

The petition is dismissed. No orders passed on pending applications if any.

What the court decided

Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria versus the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Supreme Court (2025)

¶1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 196 EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 15500 OF 2024

¶3

SMT. DHANLAXMI URF SUNITA MATHURIA & ANR.

¶4

……PETITIONERS

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ……RESPONDENTS

¶7

ORDER

¶8

The petitioners had filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the High Court of Rajasthan, alleging that their mother was in unauthorized detention of the private respondents and the police could not trace their mother despite missing reports filed by the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioners’ mother returned home and consequently, the High Court vide order dated 04.07.2024 dismissed the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition as having become infructuous.

¶9

As per the petitioners, during the course of hearing of the Signature Not Verified

¶10

Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.02.12 16:27:45 IST Habeas Corpus petition, the police officials made a statement, Reason: asserting that a divorce decree has been passed with respect to

¶11

¶12

the marriage between Petitioner no. 1 and her husband; and that Petitioner no. 1’s husband got remarried. Further, petitioner no.1 claims that she requested the High Court, to direct the concerned police officials to furnish a clarification explaining the veracity of such statements. This request was accepted by the High Court, but on the next date of hearing, the Habeas Corpus petition itself was dismissed as being infructuous, since the Petitioners’ mother had returned home. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners sought review of the order dated

¶13

04.07.2024 by which the Habeas Corpus petition was disposed of. This review petition was dismissed on 23.07.2024 as no case was made out to recall the previous order. The Petitioners did not stop here. In August 2024, they filed a miscellaneous application before the High Court praying that the previous orders dated 04.07.2024 and 23.07.2024, should be looked into and an explanation must be sought from the police authorities, clarifying the basis on which they made statements regarding the divorce of petitioner no. 1. This miscellaneous application has been dismissed vide the impugned order. Now, before us, the petitioner no.1 is alleging that she was humiliated in open court during the hearing of the Habeas Corpus petition and the High Court ought to have

¶14

¶15

sought an explanation from the concerned police officials as stated above.

¶16

We have heard the petitioners, who appeared inperson before

¶17

this Court. The primary grievance of petitioner no.1 is that she has been humiliated and defamed in open court due to the statements made by the concerned police officials regarding her matrimonial life. According to petitioner no. 1, initially the High Court passed an order dated 30.05.2024 in the Habeas Corpus petition, directing the police authorities to submit in writing the basis on which the concerned remarks were made. Here, we would like to reproduce the High Court’s order dated

¶18

30.05.2024, which is as follows:

¶19

“Learned GAcumAAG has produced the status report. We have perused the status report.

¶20

Learned GAcumAAG seeks four weeks’ time to produce the corpus.

¶21

Time prayed for is allowed. List the matter on 04.07.2024”

¶22

This order of the High Court does not even remotely support the contentions of the petitioners. From a bare perusal of the record and especially the order dated 30.05.2024, it is but apparent that no such directions to the police authorities, as alleged by the petitioners, were given by the High Court. 5. The grievance of petitioner no.1, that she has been defamed by

¶23

the statements of the police officials and was humiliated in

¶24

¶25

open court, is totally misconceived. Even if such statements were made before the High Court, we are unable to understand how it has caused any humiliation to petitioner no.1.

¶26

During court proceedings, many statements are made and questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable, but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may be uncomfortable to some.

¶27

In the present case, the petitioners had simply approached the

¶28

High Court, alleging that their mother had been unlawfully detained; and a quietus was given to the case when their mother returned home and thus, habeas corpus petition was disposed of. Thereafter, nothing was left in the matter and the subsequent review petition, miscellaneous application as well as the present petition filed by petitioners are totally misconceived. Before this Court, the petitioners argued in person and made unusual and unwarranted prayers, which cannot be granted by this Court and considering the same, the present petition is hereby dismissed.

¶29

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶31

…..………………………………..J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

¶32

..……………………….………….J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

¶33

February 12, 2025 New Delhi

¶34

Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria v. the 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

Jagwant Kaur versus Union of India

Jagdish Chand Memorial Trust versus the State of Himachal Pradesh

Shanti versus National Insurance Company

Southern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd.(Tsspdcl) versus B Ramesh