Premvati Meena W/O Jagdish Prasad ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7789 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 333/2022

1.      Premvati Meena W/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About
        50 Years, R/o E-71, Dayalbagh, Sector 39, District
        Faridabad, Haryana.
2.      Jagdish Prasad Meena S/o Ganga Sahai Meena, Aged
        About 54 Years, R/o E-71, Dayalbagh, Sector 39, District
        Faridabad, Haryana.
                                                                   ----Petitioners
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
        Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The Superintendent Of Police, Karauli, Rajasthan.
3.      The S.h.o. Police Station Todha Bheem, Karauli.
4.      The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human
        Trafficking Unit, Jaipur.
5.      Pooja Singh W/o Late Balwinder Singh Meena, R/o Village
        Dehriya, Tehsil Nadoti, Distt. Karauli, Current Address -
        Lecturer, Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Ajijpur, Tehsil
        Todabheem, Distt. Karauli.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Mohit Balwada
                                 Ms Bhavana Choudhary
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Biri Singh, Sr. Adv. with
                                 Mr. J.S. Rathore
For State                  :     Mr. N.S. Gurjar, Assistant Govt.
                                 Advocate
                           :     Mr. Shailendra Singh, SI, SHO
                                 Todabhim, Karauli



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

                                     Order

13/12/2022

1.   Petitioners    have       preferred     this     habeas     corpus   petition

seeking production of corpus who happens to be grandson of the

petitioners.

2. Corpus is present before the Court.

(2 of 4) [HC-333/2022]

3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners that corpus is a

child suffering from muscular dystrophy which requires special

treatment. It is also contended that respondent No.5-mother is

not having sufficient means to provide the said treatment to the

corpus. It is further contended that in this type of ailment, the

average age of the child is just 20 years and if proper treatment is

given, the average age of child may go upto 30 years. It is

contended that after filing of the present habeas corpus petition,

respondent No.5 has written letter to Prime Minister on

09.11.2022 and is trying to make up a case that proper care is

being given to the corpus.

4. Petitioner No.1 present in person in the Court has stated that

they are ready to bear the medical expenses of the child.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has

contended that petitioners are harassing respondent No.5 by filing

complaints at different places and also making complaints to the

owner of the house where respondent No.5 is staying as tenant.

They have also filed complaint before Child Welfare Committee,

Karauli and Child Welfare Committee, Karauli vide order dated

18.11.2022 has passed an order in favour of respondent No.5-

mother. It is contended that similar allegations are levelled in the

present habeas corpus petition which were levelled before Child

Welfare Committee, Karauli. It is also contended that respondent

No.5 mother of the child is a lecturer who is doing her best for

treatment of her child.

6. We have considered the contentions.

7. The scope of habeas corpus petition is very limited.

Admittedly, respondent No.5-mother is only natural guardian who

is entitled for custody of the child after demise of father of the

(3 of 4) [HC-333/2022]

child. Respondent No.5 is a lecturer who is taking best care of the

child. On complaint filed by the petitioners, the matter was taken

up before Child Welfare Committee, Karauli and Child Welfare

Committee, Karauli vide order dated 18.11.2022 has directed

respondent No.5-mother to take proper care of the child and the

said order has not been challenged.

8. Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon

Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State of Gujarat & Ors.,

passed by Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.898/2022. The

facts of the present case are entirely different from the above

judgment as in that case, the custody of the corpus was handed

over to maternal aunt of the corpus in place of paternal

grandparents whereas, present is a case where custody is with the

mother of the corpus and mother being natural guardian is

capable of looking after the corpus.

9. We are of the considered view that the corpus is not in any

illegal detention and respondent No.5-mother is natural guardian

of the child who is taking proper care of the child. If the

petitioners so wishes they are free to give financial help to

respondent No.5 for medical treatment of the child.

10. Considering the above, we are not inclined to entertain the

present habeas corpus petition and the same is accordingly,

dismissed.

11. As per directions of the Court, a demand draft of Rs.50,000/-

was deposited by the petitioners with Registrar(Judicial) drawn in

favour of Registrar(General) Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench,

Jaipur. Registrar(Judicial) is directed to prepare a demand draft

(4 of 4) [HC-333/2022]

of Rs.50,000/- in name of respondent No.5-Pooja Singh and the

same be handed over to respondent No.5 forthwith as cost of

litigation.

(BIRENDRA KUMAR),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

HEENA/01

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)