SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Kuljeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 3 October, 2019

CRWP-694-2019 (OM) -1-


CRWP-694-2019 (OM)
Date of decision : 03.10.2019
Kuljeet Kaur …Petitioner
State of Punjab and others …Respondents

Present: Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Additional A.G. Punjab.


Petitioner, a mother of Assange Sandhu who is more than 8 years

old, has filed this writ petition under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of India

for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or any other appropriate

writ. She claims that Assange Sandhu is in illegal custody of his father Jaspal

Singh, respondent No.5 since 2015 and, therefore, the Court should issue a


At the outset, it must be mentioned that petitioner has already

filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890 before

the Family Court which was dismissed for non-prosecution during the

pendency of the present petition. Respondent No.5 had also filed a petition for

dissolution of marriage by way of decree of divorce which has also been

dismissed on 04.02.2016.

It has also come in the pleadings particularly reply filed by

Deputy Superintendent of Police as well as respondent No.5 that petitioner,

respondent No.5 and their son Assange Sandhu were ordered to be deported by

the authorities of U.K. when they were refused permission to stay vide order

1 of 2
07-10-2019 08:41:42 :::
CRWP-694-2019 (OM) -2-

dated 24.02.2015. It has come in the pleadings that respondent No.5 and his

son Assange Sandhu left U.K. however, petitioner stayed there.

Question before this Court is whether this Court should exercise

its jurisdiction under SectionArticle 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of

writ in the nature of habeas corpus or not?

In the considered view of this Court, answer to the aforesaid

question has to be in negative in the facts and circumstances of the present

case. The reasons for conclusion are as under:-

1) Assange Sandhu is in custody of his father which cannot be said to be


2) Petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and SectionWards Act, was filed by

the petitioner, which of course has been dismissed for non-prosecution

vide order dated 16.09.2019, however, the petitioner can file an

application for restoration thereof.

3) Petitioner does not allege that there is any order of the competent Court

either in United Kingdom or anywhere else ordering restoration of

custody to the petitioner.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court declines to issue the writ.

However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an application for seeking

restoration of the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and SectionWards Act,


Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

03.10.2019 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)

Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No

2 of 2
07-10-2019 08:41:43 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation