Sumedha Nagpal vs State Of Delhi And Ors.
2000 Latest Caselaw 24 Del

JUDGMENT

Devinder Gupta, J.

1. Preliminary objection as regards territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. On 24.8.1999 the petitioner approached this Court seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus for production and restoration of her 20 months old child. It was alleged that her marriage with respondent No. 2 took place on 15.10.1996 at Delhi. A male child was born on 15.11.1997 in Mool Chand Hospital at New Delhi. Parties had been residing at Delhi. Relations between the petitioner and the respondent became strained because of alleged cruel behaviour of respondent No. 2 towards petitioner. On 7.4.1999 petitioner was severely thrashed by respondent No. 2 and turned out of the house. Petitioner had to take shelter at her parents' house at Delhi. On 20.5.1999 she had to lodge a complaint at Police Station Sarai Rohilla of the repeated threats of abduction of her child by respondent No. 2. On 6.6.1999 respondent No. 2 along with his parents came and offered unqualified apology for their past conduct. Respondent No. 2 agreed to behave decently in future and on such assurance, there was reconciliation. The petitioner resumed company of respondent No. 2 at her matrimonial home located at B-16, Gujrawala Town, Phase-I, Delhi, It is further alleged that as a part of well thought out calculated plan, respondent No. 2 on 28.6.1999 shifted his residence from Delhi to Bahadurgarh in Haryana. The petitioner along with the child also accompanied respondent No. 2 to Bahadurgarh where admittedly the petitioner along with the child continued to reside along with respondent No. 2.

3. It is alleged that on 1.8.1999 when the petitioner was busy attending to the guests at her matrimonial house at Bahadurgarh, she was deprived of custody of the child by respondent No. 2. Thereafter the petitioner was put in a car and was taken to the residence of respondents Nos.5 and 6 in Model Town, Delhi where she was kept confined till 8.8.1999. On finding an opportunity, she escaped from the wrongful confinement and on 10.8.1999, a complaint was sent by her to Police Commissioner. On 18.8.1999 another complaint was lodged at Police Station, Sarai Rohilla. On these allegations, the petitioner alleged that she was deprived of custody of her infant child, who was liable to be restored to her by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner has engaged in forum hunting. After having invoked jurisdiction of Court at Bahadurgarh, Haryana by filing an application on 14,8.1999 for restoration of custody of the child to her in proceedings initiated on the complaint of her father and having remained unsuccessful, approached this Court on 24.8.1999 without disclosing those facts. No part of cause of action for claiming the relief has arisen within jurisdiction of this Court. As such, the petition was not entertainable in this Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that it was pursuant to a well hatched criminal conspiracy that she was firstly shifted from Delhi to Bahadurgarh and later on at Bahadurgarh, she was deprived of custody of the child, therefore, this Court will have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Residence prior to shifting to Bahadurgarh was at Delhi and the act of hatching of conspiracy was performed in Delhi, therefore, part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi.

5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and been taken through the affidavits exchanged.

6. Undoubtedly for determination of the objection of lack of territorial jurisdiction, the Court must take all the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action into consideration without embarking upon inquiry as to the correctness or otherwise of the said facts. The petitioner in her petition has alleged that after conciliation took place between her and respondent No. 2, she shifted along with respondent No. 2 to Bahadurgarh on 28.6.1999 along with the child. She has been staying at Bahadurgarh till she was deprived of custody of the child on 1.8.1999. In Oil and Natural Gas Commission v. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711, it was held that High Court can exercise the power to issue directions, orders or writs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights conferred by Part-Ill of the Constitution or for any other purpose, if the cause of action, wholly or in part, had arisen within the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, notwithstanding that the seat of the Government or the authority or the residence of the person against whom the direction, order or writ is issued is not within the said territories.

7. For issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, as has been sought by the petitioner in the instant case, what has to be seen is that at what place the petitioner was deprived of custody of the child, the place where the child has been residing and the place where the child is now staying. Admittedly, the petitioner was also deprived of custody of the child at Bahadurgarh. On the date of filing of the petition, respondent No. 2 was staying at Bahadurgarh. On the date of filing of the petition and as of today also, the child is at Bahadurgarh in Haryana. Only the act of deprivation of minor's custody and residence of the minor on the date of filing of the petition would constitute an integral part of the cause of action for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which admittedly arose at Bahadurgarh. The petitioner admittedly before coming to this Court, had approached Bahadurgarh Court on 14.8.1999 for restoration of custody of the child. As such, we are of the view that this Court will have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach appropriate Court for redressal of her grievances. Any observation made in this order will not Cause prejudice to rights and contentions of either of the parties.