- (1.) A. S. Gill, J. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner in this petition is the wife of opposite party Praveen Mathur. The marriage was performed at Delhi where the petitioner lived with her husband. She claimed to have been ill-treated by her in-laws, who are arrayed as opposite parties, on account of certain dowry articles which were asked for to be brought from her parents. She also claims to have been turned out of the house on several occasions. She also gave birth to a daughter named now Nikita Mathur and is said to be agued about 7 months but now more than a year, as she is said to have been born on 22nd February, 1995. It is alleged that on 24th September, 19j5 the petitioner was given merciless beating and she was threatened. She claims to have left the house leaving the infant child and is living at Lucknow. She has filed the present petition for production of the minor daughter Nikita and its custody to her.
(2.) ON presentation of the petition, notices were issued to the opposite parties and direction was issued for production of the child in this Court. Today a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. However, the child is said to be lying ill and could not be produced today. Learned counsel for the opposite parties at the very outset has challenged the petitioner for filing the petition in this Court, as according to the learned counsel, no cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and the provisions under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, referred to Various decisions even of English Court to contend that appropriate orders can be passed by the High Court in the present case and relief could be moulded in a manner which is in the interest of justice to the parties and specially the interest and welfare of the child is to be kept in mind. The jurisdiction of this Court in respect of institution of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus is circumscribed itself by Article 226 and this Court is em powered to issue directions or writ in the nature of habeas corpus only in the territory in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction i. e. , a writ, if at all, can be issued against a person, authority or Government which is within the jurisdiction of this Court i. e. State of U. P. Article 226 (2) further empowers this Court to issue such writ if the cause of action has arisen partly within the jurisdiction of this Court and partly in territory which is beyond its jurisdiction. Applying the directive of Article 226 to the facts of the present case, it is clear that no cause of action in respect of the incident reported in the writ petition took place within the jurisdiction of this Court. The marriage took place at Delhi, the parties resided at Delhi. The petitioner left the infant child herself with her in-laws at Delhi on 24th September, 1995, according to her and the present petition has been filed at Lucknow. There is thus lack of jurisdiction in this Court to issue any direction or writ in the nature of habeas corpus in this case. Since no cause of action has arisen in this case within the jurisdiction of this Court, this petition accordingly is misconceived and is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;