Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/175/2021 on 9 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARAYAN SINGH DHANIK
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2021
09TH NOVEMBER, 2021
BETWEEN:
Col. Jaipreet Singh .....Appellant.
And
Lt. Col. S. Bajaj & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Neeraj Garg.
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel
for respondent no.1.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy
Advocate General assisted by Mr.
S.S. Chaudhary, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
The bone of contention between the appellant, Col.
Jaipreet Singh, who is the father of Arjun, and the respondent
No.1, Lt. Col. S. Bajaj, who is the maternal uncle of Arjun, is
over the custody of Arjun.
2. The respondent No.1, Lt. Col. S. Bajaj had filed a
Habeas Corpus petition, namely Habeas Corpus Writ Petition
No.10 of 2021, for seeking the custody of his nephew, Arjun.
3. By order dated 09.06.2021, a learned Single Judge
of this Court had allowed the writ petition, and granted the
custody of Arjun to the respondent No.1, Lt. Col. S. Bajaj.
4. Mr. Abhijay Negi, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, informs this Court that as of today Arjun
has become major, since he has reached the age of eighteen
years.
5. Although, Mr. Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for
the appellant, does not challenge the fact that Arjun is now a
major person, but even the learned counsel for the appellant
submits that he cannot make a statement at the Bar that the
present appeal has become infructuous.
6. The stand being taken by the learned counsel for
the appellant is rather surprising. For, once Arjun has become
major, the question of his custody need not be adjudicated
and decided by this Court. Since Arjun is now a major, it is
for him to decide with whom he wishes to live, whether he
wishes to live with his father, or with his maternal uncle?
7. Once Arjun has become major, the question of his
custody does not even survive to be adjudicated by this
Court. But despite these facts, the learned counsel for the
appellant still contends that the appeal has not become
infructuous.
8. This Court does not appreciate the stand being
taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. For, a counsel
should be honest and should admit the fact, and should
clearly state before the Court whether a case has become
infructuous, or not. But this Court is of the firm opinion that
this appeal has become infructuous.
9. Therefore, it is, hereby, dismissed, as infructuous.
(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.)
(N.S. DHANIK, J.)
Dated: 09th November, 2021
NISHANT
