Gaurav Jeena Arora vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Heard Mr. Nachiket V. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 4 and Ms. Anubhuti Marhas, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No. 5 & 6.

The marriage between the petitioner and Priyanka was solemnized on 24.11.2004.

On 09.11.2007, Shrimanansh, for whom this writ of Habeas Corpus was filed, was born.

The marriage between the petitioner and Priyanka was dissolved by mutual consent by a decree dated 29.01.2019. According to the terms of the consent decree, custody of Shrimanansh was to remain with Priyanka. While Priyanka again got married with respondent No. 5 in the month of March, 2019, the petitioner again got married in the month of April, 2019. Priyanka died on 12.04.2021.

It is pleaded that after the death of Priyanka, the petitioner approached the respondent No. 5 for custody of the minor son. He refused to give custody and when pressed hard, he was told that Shrimanansh was with respondent No. 6, who is mother of Priyanka.

Accordingly, petitioner approached respondent No. 6, who in turn, informed the petitioner that Shrimanansh was with respondent No. 5.

It is in the background of aforesaid facts when the whereabouts of the child was not known, this petition was filed before this Court seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus and to hand over the child to the petitioner.

Pursuant to an order of this Court dated 08.08.2022, the respondents No. 5 and 6 along with Shrimanansh are present before this Court. The petitioner is also present.

We had some interaction with Shrimanansh and, prima facie, we are satisfied about his well being. On a query as to where he is residing, he states that he lives with respondent No. 6 in the 6th floor of a building and in the 3rd floor of the same building, the respondent No. 5 and brother (son from the previous marriage of the respondent No. 5) live. On a query as to whether he would like to go with the petitioner, Shrimanansh says in the negative and also declines to meet him.

Mr. Kulkarni submits that it may be for the reason that for the last 31/2 years, the petitioner has not been able to have access to his son and therefore, he had given such response. He further submits that Shrimanansh may also have been tutored.

In order to ascertain and to find out the whereabouts of Shrimanansh, this petition for Habeas Corpus was entertained. Being, prima facie, satisfied about his safety, security and well-being, we will not like to go into the custodial aspect of the matter and leave the petitioner to chart out appropriate course of action with regard to custody and other rights that may be available to him in appropriate forum.

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.