AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard on the question of admission.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks issuance of writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the corpus
Chandramohan alias Betu is his son and is in illegal confinement of respondents No.5 and 6.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.5 is the wife of the petitioner but had left the petitioner and started
living with the respondent No.6 Rajbahadur out of her own free will alongwith the corpus Chandramohan alias Betu, who is aged about 7 years. It is
further submitted that the custody of the corpus was not delivered to the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 7 and 10
of the Guardian and Wards Act seeking custody of the corpus. The application was decided vide order dt.10.03.2018 (Annexure P/2) and the custody
of the corpus was directed to be granted to the petitioner. Since custody of the corpus was not handed over, an application was filed before the police
authority for the purpose of seeking custody. Execution proceedings for execution of the order dt.10.03.2018 was also filed and the same is pending.
Respondents No.5 and 6 kept the corpus in illegal custody in spite of the judgment and decree passed in favour of the petitioner, hence, this petition
seeking a writ of habeas corpus has been filed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that the present petition is not maintainable, inasmuch
as parallel proceedings can not be entertained once the order has been passed in the appropriate proceeding and the execution proceedings are still
pending.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Since the mother is also the natural guardian of the corpus/ child, therefore, it can not be said that the corpus is in illegal detention of the mother. The
execution proceeding is pending. It is settled law that the writ of habeas corpus is not to be issued as a matter of course and clear grounds must be
made out for issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Moreover, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case of illegal confinement, hence, the
petition is not maintainable. The same is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.