Roshani Devi vs State Nct Of Delhi And Ors
2026 Latest Caselaw 839 Del

Delhi High Court

Roshani Devi vs State Nct Of Delhi And Ors on 12 February, 2026

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

                  $~1
                  *      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                                             Date of decision: 12.02.2026

                  +      W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025
                         ROSHANI DEVI                                         .....Petitioner
                                             Through:     Mr.Abhishek Kaushik and
                                                          Mr.Shubham, Advs. along with
                                                          Petitioner in person.
                                                          Mr.Tejpal in person (son of
                                                          petitioner)

                                             versus

                         STATE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS           .....Respondents
                                      Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) with
                                               Ms.Priyam              Agarwal,
                                               Mr.Abhinav Kr. Arya and
                                               Mr.Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. and
                                               Insp. Ravi Prakash Meena, PS
                                               J.P. Kalan, Dwarka Distt.

                         CORAM:
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
                         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

                  NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)

1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for production of the son of the petitioner, that is, Mr.Tejpal.

2. Mr.Tejpal appeared before this Court on 21.11.2025 and had expressed his desire to stay with his mother, that is, the petitioner

herein. Keeping in view his desire, this Court, while referring the parties to mediation, observed that he is at liberty to take his own independent decision including staying with his mother.

3. We are informed that since that day he has been staying with the petitioner.

4. Today, he is present in person before this Court. He again states that he would like to continue to stay with his mother.

5. The learned counsel for the wife and the child of Mr.Tejpal submits that as far as they are concerned, they would be happy if Mr.Tejpal stays with them, however, they have no objection if Mr.Tejpal continues to stay with the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, no further directions are required to be passed except stating that Mr.Tejpal can choose to stay wherever he wishes, as he is a major.

7. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the respondent no.3 does not have the requisite permissions and clearances for acting as a de-addiction centre. He submits that the operations of the respondent no.3 without such permission would be illegal.

8. As none is present for the respondent no.3, we do not go further in this allegation except stating that the respondent no.2, that is, SHO of the concerned area, shall inquire into this allegation and determine if the respondent no.3 is operating without the requisite permissions and approvals and, if that be so, take action against them in accordance with law.

9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the

above plea of the petitioner.

10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J FEBRUARY 12, 2026/ns/as