CRWP-881-2019(OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CRWP-881-2019(OM)
Date of decision:-2.3.2020

Amit Gulrajani
…Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others
…Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.MADAAN

Present: Mr.Gaurav Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms.Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana.

Mr.Kunal Dawar, Advocate
for respondent No.3.

****

H.S. MADAAN, J.

Petitioner – Amit Gulrajani, aged about 42 years, resident of

Singapore, having address of India also, has filed this criminal writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a

writ in the nature of habeas corpus seeking release of his minor daughter –

Henna Gulrajani from the custody of his wife Smt.Aditi Subbiah –

respondent No.3, residing at Gurugram stating that she is being illegally

detained in defiance to custody orders passed by Family Court at

Singapore; further craving for issuance of direction to respondents i.e.

1 of 3
15-03-2020 06:47:12 :::
CRWP-881-2019(OM) -2-

State of Haryana through Home Secretary to Government of Haryana,

Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, Commissioner of Police, Gurugram,

Smt.Aditi Subbiah, SHO, Police Station Sector – 29, DLF, Gurugram to

produce the child before this Court for handing over her custody to the

petitioner.

Notice of the petition was given to respondent No.3, who put

in appearance opposing the request that proceedings under Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 as well as Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890 are pending and petitioner can move appropriate

application in those Courts for redressal of his grievance and the writ

petition at his instance is not maintainable.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going

through the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Lahari

Sakhamuri Versus Sobhan Kodali, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 395 and

Yashita Sahu Versus State of Rajasthan and Others, 2020 SCC OnLine

SC 50 in support of his contentions that the writ petition at the instance of

the petitioner is maintainable and necessary relief may be granted to him

in these proceedings.

Whereas learned counsel for respondent No.3 is opposing the

request.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going

through the authorities, I find that keeping in view the facts and

circumstances, it would be proper and appropriate if the petitioner

approaches the Court of competent jurisdiction under Guardians and

2 of 3
15-03-2020 06:47:13 :::
CRWP-881-2019(OM) -3-

Wards Act or under any other relevant provision of law for seeking

custody of the minor child. In those proceedings, he can pray for grant of

temporary custody. Though he is relying upon order passed by Court at

Singapore but then it has to be seen as to whether such order has been

passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction and to what extent the

direction issued by such Court is applicable in light of the laws on the

subject applicable to the parties in this country. Some litigation between

the parties is stated to be going on. The petitioner may move appropriate

application in the said litigation or file a separate petition/suit. Therefore,

it is not found proper and appropriate under the circumstances to get

custody of the minor girl aged about eight years from her mother and hand

it over to her father. The child is in custody of her mother, who is her

natural guardian and it cannot be said that she is being illegally detained

or confined by mother of the child or that her residing with the mother is

detrimental to her interest.

The petition is doomed for failure and is dismissed

accordingly.

2.3.2020 (H.S.MADAAN)
Brij JUDGE

Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
15-03-2020 06:47:13 :::