IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of decision:-2.3.2020
State of Haryana and others
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 :::
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
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
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 :::
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
Whether reasoned/speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
15-03-2020 06:47:13 :::