The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
(BHARAT PARASHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 19-03-2020
Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kuber Boddh, learned Dy.Advocate General for the
respondents/State on advance notice.
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
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
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI)