SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Priya Bhatti vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 December, 2019

CRWP-743-2019 -1-


Date of decision-04.12.2019

Priya Bhatti …Petitioner


State of Punjab and others …Respondents


Present: Mr. Saurabh Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, DAG, Punjab.



Priya Bhatti-Petitioner has filed this criminal writ petition

praying for issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for custody of her

child, namely, Lakshya son of Tirath Singh Bhatti (detenu) who is allegedly

in illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 and 5 (grand-parents of the detenu).

Notice of motion was issued in this petition on 28.08.2019.

Pursuant to the said order, status report by way of affidavit of Major Singh

(PPS) Assistant Commissioner of Police-V, Jalandhar on behalf of

respondent Nos.1 to 3 has been filed, wherein it is revealed that the child

was born in the year 2010 who initially resided with the parents for five

years. However, w.e.f. year 2016, the child is being brought up by

respondent Nos.4 and 5 (grand-parents) who got him admitted in Army

1 of 3
08-12-2019 10:14:10 :::
CRWP-743-2019 -2-

School, Jalandhar Cantt. As per the reply, relations between the husband and

wife got strained and the child is living happily with the grand-parents.

Apart from it, the petitioner has already availed the statutory

remedy to seek custody of the child through a petition filed under the

Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890 which is pending before the Additional

Principal Judge Family Court, Jalandhar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that

even if the petition is pending, the custody can be given to the mother by

exercising an extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. He has placed reliance upon

the judgment passed by this Court in “Jaswinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab

and others”, 2010 (2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 891.

During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned

counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner separated from her husband in

the year 2016 and the petition has been filed in the year 2019, for custody of

the child who is presently nine years old. It is not a case where the custody

of the child was recently taken away illegally from the mother warranting

interference by exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The judgment

relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is not attracted in the

present set of facts of the present case as in the said case, husband had

expired and the custody of the child was forcibly taken away by the grand-


Considering the averments made in the petition, this Court does

not find any valid reason to exercise the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction,

particularly when the petitioner has already availed the statutory remedy

2 of 3
08-12-2019 10:14:10 :::
CRWP-743-2019 -3-

under the Guardians and SectionWards Act, 1890.

Petition is dismissed.


Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No

3 of 3
08-12-2019 10:14:10 :::

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