Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Khinya Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 28 July, 2022
Bench: S S Shinde, Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 223/2022
Khinya Ram S/o Shri Lichman Ram, Aged About 39 Years, By
Caste Hudda, Resident Of Huddo Ki Dhaniya, Village Ghodaran
Tehsil And District Nagour, P.s. Sri Balaji District Nagour
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary,
Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagour (Rajasthan).
3. The S.h.o., P.s. Sri Balaji, District Nagour (Rajasthan).
4. Hukma Ram S/o Shri Lichman Ram, By Caste Hudda,
Resident Of Huddo Ki Dhaniya, Village Ghodaran Tehsil
And District Nagour, P.s. Sri Balaji District Nagour
(Rajasthan).
5. Smt. Anita W/o Shri Hukma Ram, By Caste Hudda,
Resident Of Huddo Ki Dhaniya, Village Ghodaran Tehsil
And District Nagour, P.s. Sri Balaji District Nagour
(Rajasthan).
6. Bhagirath Ram S/o Shri Kishna Ram, By Caste Hudda,
Resident Of Huddo Ki Dhaniya, Village Ghodaran Tehsil
And District Nagour, P.s. Sri Balaji District Nagour
(Rajasthan).
7. Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Deva Ram, By Caste Hudda,
Resident Of Biramsar Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner, P.s.
Nokha District Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deen Dayal Chitlangi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.A. Siddiqui, GA-cum-AAG with
Mr. A.R. Malkani
Mr. Abdul Rahuf, SI, SHO, PS Sri
Balaji
Mr. Banshilal, Head Constable
Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Lady Constable
(2 of 4) [HC-223/2022]
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. S. S. SHINDE
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
28/07/2022
The present habeas corpus petition has been filed by the
father of the minor corpus who has been alleged to be in illegal
detention of respondents No.4 to 7.
It has been averred in the petition that the respondents No.4
to 7 claimed an amount of Rs.4,02,000/- from the petitioner for
releasing his daughter which was paid by him to them. Further
they again demanded an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and when the
same was not paid, they refused to release his daughter from
their detention.
The corpus 'S' was presented today before this Court by the
concerned police officers. On interaction with her in camera, the
corpus candidly stated that she is residing with her uncle, aunt
and grandmother out of her own free will and volition. She also
stated that she has not been illegally detained by anyone and she
has been residing with her uncle's family for last more than 10
years. She emphatically stated that she does not wish to go to
her father's place and wishes to reside with her grandmother and
uncle's family only.
We also conversed with the grandmother of the minor
corpus. The grandmother stated that she resides with both of her
sons in turns and the minor girl is residing with her uncle's family
only since last 10 years. She also stated that the minor girl has
been living happily with her uncle and aunt right from her
childhood.
(3 of 4) [HC-223/2022]
We also conversed with the parents of the minor girl. After
interacting with them, the fact of illegal detention by respondents
No.4 to 7 prima facie seems to be incorrect. Father of the corpus
failed to explain as to why he paid the amount to the respondents
who are in no matter related to the fact of residing of the minor at
her uncle's place.
Therefore, it is clear that the corpus has not been illegally
detained by anyone as alleged in the petition. The corpus is
residing with her uncle's family from last 10 years on her own free
will and volition.
True it is that the natural guardian of the minor is his father
but as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the paramount
consideration of the Court would be the welfare of the minor. The
Hon'ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and Ors. vs. Shekhar
Jagdish Prasad Tewari and Ors. [(2019) 7 SCC 42] while
considering the earlier judgment of Ruchi Majoo vs. Sanjeev
Majoo [(2011) 6 SCC 479] held as under:
"58. Proceedings in the nature of habeas corpus
are summary in nature, where the legality of the
detention of the alleged detenue is examined on
the basis of affidavits placed by the parties. Even
so, nothing prevents the High Court from
embarking upon a detailed enquiry in cases where
the welfare of a minor is in question, which is the
paramount consideration for the Court while
exercising its parens patriae jurisdiction. A High
Court may, therefore, invoke its extra ordinary
jurisdiction to determine the validity of the
detention, in cases that fall within its jurisdiction
and may also issue orders as to custody of the
minor depending upon how the court views the
rival claims, if any, to such custody."
In view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case,
this Court is of the specific opinion that there is no illegal
(4 of 4) [HC-223/2022]
detention of the minor corpus by anyone and therefore, the
present habeas corpus petition cannot be entertained by this
Court. However, it would be open for father of the minor girl to
take appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum for the
custody of the child if he wishes to do so.
With the above observations, the present habeas corpus
petition is disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J (S. S. SHINDE),CJ
6-T.Singh, Abhishek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
