DR. DHIRAJ S/O. RAMSHANKARJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AT: NAGPUR)
Dr. Dhiraj S/O. Ramshankarji ...
State Of Maharashtra Thr. The ...
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This petition is filed to seek a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce minor child Master Raajveer and to hand him over to the petitioner. The petition also claims relief of restraining the respondent No.2 as well as respondent Nos. 1 and 3 from allowing or taking Master Raajveer along with her to the United Kingdom or any other country and to further restrain the respondents from moving Master Raajveer out of India without the consent and concurrence of the petitioner and without following the due process of law.
(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that the minor child aged about 7 years, born out of the wedlock of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 Dr. (Smt.) Radhika Gupta was in the custody of the petitioner since October, 2016, pursuant to the conscious and consensus decision of the petitioner and the respondent No.2 to relocate them in India from London in United Kingdom and was admitted in one of the best schools, run by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan at Shrikrushna Nagar at Nagpur. The final examination of the first standard of the minor child was going on from 06.04.2017 and it was to come to an end on 12.04.2017. The complaint in the petition is that respondent No.2, mother of the minor child and the wife of the petitioner, without the knowledge and consent of the petitioner picked up the minor child from the School on 11.04.2017 itself and took him to a different place without intimating the petitioner his whereabouts. The petitioner could know the plan of the respondent No.2 to take the minor child with her at London in United Kingdom and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of this petition.
(3.) On 26.04.2017, this Court passed an order as under;
Notice, returnable on 07.06.2017.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
R.P.A.D./Hamdast service for respondent No.2. Additionally, service through e-mail on respondent No.2 also permitted."
Thereafter on 12.05.2017, this Court passed an order as under;
"The respondent No.2 is not yet served. However, taking into consideration the apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the respondent No.2 may leave India along with minor child Rajveer, by way of ad interim order, the respondent No.2 is hereby injuncted from taking minor child Rajveer out of India without leave of this Court.
Criminal Application No. 93/2017 For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed. The application stands disposed of accordingly".
On 07.06.2017, the respondent No. 2, wife of the petitioner, put her appearance through her counsel in this Court. It is informed that the minor child was produced before this Court (Bench of M/s. P.B.Varale and M.G.Giratkar, JJ.). He was interviewed personally in chamber and also there was talk with the petitioner and the respondent No.2. The matter could not be sorted out. The minor child Master Raajveer preferred to stay with his mother. ;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.