Nikita D/O Late Shri Mukesh Mittal vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 116 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 5/2023

Nikita D/o Late Shri Mukesh Mittal, Resident Of Bohara Colony,
Kekri, Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
        Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      The Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human
        Trafficking Unit, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3.      Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer, District Ajmer (Raj.)
4.      S.h.o. Police Station Kekri, District Ajmer (Rajasthan)
5.      Amit Goyal Son Of Kailash Chand Goyal, Aged About 30
        Years, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Neminath Mandir Ki
        Gali, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)
6.      Kailash Chand Goyal Son Of Not Known, Aged About 60
        Years, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Neminath Mandir Ki
        Gali, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)
7.      Rajesh Goyal Son Of Shri Kailash Chand Goyal, Aged
        About 35 Years, Resident Of Bohara Colony, Neminath
        Mandir Ki Gali, Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S. Rathore, G.A.-cum-AAG

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

Judgment / Order

04/01/2023

1. The petitioner is mother of the corpus, aged three and a half

years. The corpus is staying alongwith Respondent No.5 who is

father of the corpus and other respondents who are paternal

relations.

(2 of 2) [HC-5/2023]

2. The case of petitioner is that she was preparing for REET

Examination at Jaipur and later on, when she wanted to meet the

child, she was disallowed by the private respondents. Since she is

natural guardian of the corpus, aged three and a half years, the

respondents be directed to hand over the custody of the corpus to

the petitioner.

3. The application does not disclose any specific date when the

minor was forcefully taken away from the custody of the petitioner

rather the petition discloses case of normal and natural custody of

the child with the father. If the petitioner wants custody of the

child, she may bring proper process before the Family Court

having jurisdiction.

4. Since no case of illegal detention is made out, this habeas

corpus petition stands dismissed as being devoid of any merit.

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

ARTI SHARMA /86

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)