CRWP-694-2019 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of decision : 03.10.2019
Kuljeet Kaur …Petitioner
State of Punjab and others …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL.
Present: Mr. Simranjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surinder Pal Singh Tinna, Additional A.G. Punjab.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
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 :::