Abu Tahirud Doza vs State Of Meghalaya & Ors

Soumen Sen, CJ

Two previous orders, namely the orders dated 25.04.2025 and 11.07.2025, clearly show that the Division Bench was not inclined to admit the habeas corpus petition. In fact, the latter order dated 11.07.2025, directed the petitioner to approach the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri, Assam, in view of the alleged non-compliance with its order dated 27.09.2024. During the pendency of the habeas corpus petition, the Principal Judge Dhubri, Assam rejected the said application on the ground that the minor is staying along with the mother at Jowai, West Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya and in terms of Section 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the appropriate court would be the Family Court at Jowai, West Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pendency of the proceeding under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 may not be a bar in admitting an application for habeas corpus and in this regard, he has relied upon the decisions in Gohar Begam v. Suggi alias Nazma Begam & ors (1960) AIR (SC) 93 and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & ors (2020) AIR (SC) 577.

In the instant case, we find that already orders have been passed by the Family Court granting a limited right of visitation and the said order is not under challenge. The writ petitioner seeks to enforce the order of the Family Court, alleging that despite best efforts and complaints being lodged with the appropriate authorities, the authorities concerned are not rendering any assistance.

We dispose of this petition by giving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Family Court at Jowai, West Jaintia Hills District, Meghalaya. In the event, the visitation right is denied to the petitioner, all authorities concerned, if approached in the meantime, shall ensure that the orders passed by the competent courts are complied with.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.

However, there shall be no order as to costs.