Anjali Raut @ Anjali vs The State Of Bihar Through ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 2994 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.133 of 2022
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-55 Year-2021 Thana- MAHILA PS District- Darbhanga
     ======================================================

Anjali Raut @ Anjali, W/o Late Abhishek Kumar, Resident of Village- Belwaganj, Laheriasarai, Abdullahpur, Darbhanga, Bihar - 846001

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Director General of Police.

2. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Darbhanga (Bihar).

3. The Officer In-Charge, Mahila Police Station Laheriasarai Darbhanga (Bihar).

4. The Child Welfare Committee, Darbhanga through its Director.

... ... Respondent 1st set

5. Taruna Devi, W/o Late Shatrughan Raut Resident of Light House Belwaganj, Laherisarai, Dist.- Darbhanga Bihar, P.S.- Laherisasarai, 846001

6. Ritesh Raut @ Bantu Raut, Son of late Shatrughan Raut Resident of Light House Belwaganj, Laherisarai, Dist.- Darbhanga Bihar, P.S.- Laherisasarai, 846001.

7. Monika Panjiyar, W/o Subodh Panjiyar, Resident of Diamond City Apartment, T1 10th Floor South 58 M.G. Road Tower, P.S.- Hardevpur Kolkata-700041.

... ... Private Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-State: Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti Kumar Singh, AC to AG For the Respondent no.7 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate For the Respondent No.5: Ms. Mallika Majumdar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) Date : 20-05-2022 Heard Mr. Mirityunjay Kumar, learned counsel for Patna High Court CR. WJC No.133 of 2022 dt.20-05-2022

the petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for

the respondent no.7 and Ms. Mallika Majumdar, learned counsel

for the respondent no.5. We have also heard Mr. Bishwa Bibhuti

Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State.

2. In the instant habeas corpus writ application, the

petitioner has prayed for directing the respondent-authorities to

release the minor son of the petitioner from illegal detention of

the private respondents.

3. The private respondent nos. 5, 6 and 7 are father-

in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner

respectively.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that she lost her

husband on 27.04.2021. She is blessed with a son namely,

Aditya Kumar aged about ten years. The child is in the custody

of the in-laws' of the petitioner. The further contention of the

petitioner is that prior to the death of her husband, she was

thrown away from her marital house by the in-laws on

28.12.2020. The private-respondent nos. 5 and 6and 7 have

illegally retained the custody of her minor child.

5. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner submitted that in-law of the petitioner threatened her

not to dare come back otherwise she would face uncalled Patna High Court CR. WJC No.133 of 2022 dt.20-05-2022

repercussion after she was thrown out of her matrimonial home.

He contended that the petitioner is being denied her right to

have the custody of her child who has illegally been detained by

the private respondents.

6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondent no.7 wherein it has been stated that the relationship

of the petitioner with her husband was estranged and because of

differences, she was residing at her naihar and never sought

custody of the child during the lifetime of her husband and only

after the death of her husband on 28.04.2021, she is seeking

custody of the child, who is being brought up and looked after

in the joint family of his father since birth

7. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit

that on 10.06.2021, the petitioner along with some unknown

persons came to the residence of respondent no.7. They

threatened to take away the child from the custody of

respondent no.7 and her husband. The entire incident was

reported to the police by filing a complaint on 09.06.2021 and

again on 11.06.2021. Subsequently, the respondent no.7 came to

know that the Child Welfare Committee had passed an order on

01.06.2021 to rescue Master Aditya Kumar from the custody of

respondent no.7. Thereafter, the respondent no.7 filed a statuary Patna High Court CR. WJC No.133 of 2022 dt.20-05-2022

appeal against the order of the Child Welfare Committee

(Respondent No.4) before the Collector, Darbhanga in Misc.

Appeal No.168 of 2021, which is pending for adjudication.

8. In paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit filed on

behalf of respondent no.7, it has been stated that a petition under

Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act was filed in the court

of District Judge, Darbhanga being Guardian Case No.4 of 2021

to declare the respondent no.7 as guardian of the person and

property of Aditya Kumar in the interest and welfare of the

Child in which the petitioner has appeared and filed her

objection on 18.02.2022.

9. In paragraph no.14 of the counter affidavit, it has

been stated that apprehending any forceful dispossession of the

child Aditya Kumar, the respondent no.7 filed a writ petition

vide W.P.A. No.19706 of 2022 before the Kolkata High Court

and vide order dated 11.01.2022 the High Court has been

pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing that the custody

of the child will not be disturbed for the time being and shall

abide by any order that may be passed by competent court,

Darbhanga in Guardian Case No.4 of 2021 vide order dated

24.01.2022.

10. The contentions made in the counter affidavit filed Patna High Court CR. WJC No.133 of 2022 dt.20-05-2022

on behalf of respondent no.7 have not been controverted by the

petitioner by way of filing any rejoinder.

11. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for

the respondent no.7 contended that the claim of a natural

guardian by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and

Guardianship Act cannot supersede consideration as to what is

conducive to the welfare of the minor. He contended that the

welfare of the minor child is in the interest of his grand-mother,

who is personally looking after the welfare of the child.

12. Ms. Mallika Majumdar, learned counsel appearing

for respondent no.5 has also supported the contentions advanced

in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.7. She

has adopted the submissions made on behalf of respondent no.7.

13. In view of the order passed by the Kolkata High

Court in W.P.A. No.19706 of 2022, as contained in Annexure-

R/2 filed on behalf of respondent no.7, it cannot be held to be a

case of illegal detention of a minor child. The High Court has

directed the parties not to disturb the custody of the child for the

time being and abide by any order that may be passed in

Guardianship and Wards Act Case No. 4 of 2021.

14. Under the circumstance, no direction can be issued

to the respondent authorities to release the minor son of the Patna High Court CR. WJC No.133 of 2022 dt.20-05-2022

petitioner and hand over his custody to the petitioner after being

produced before the court.

15. Moreover, the petitioner has an equally efficacious

statutory remedy available under the Guardianship and Wards

Act for the redressal of her grievance. The pleadings made on

behalf of the parties would make it clear that an application

under the Guardianship and Wards Act has already been filed

before the competent court and is pending adjudication.

16. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to

entertain the present application. It is disposed of accordingly,

with liberty to the petitioner to agitate her claim before the

competent court at Darbhanga under the Guardianship and

Wards Act.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J.)

(Harish Kumar, J.)

Sanjeet/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                NA
Uploading Date          23.05.2022
Transmission Date       23.05.2022