Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11.12.2023
ANIKET JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Somiran Sharma and Mr. Dhrubajit Saikia, Advocates with petitioner in person
Through: Mr. Atul Kharbanda and Mr. Kapil Sethi, Advocates for R-1
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this writ petition, the petitioner is praying as under:
2. The brief facts of the case are that the marriage of petitioner and respondent No.1 was solemnized on 04.11.2022 in accordance with Hindu customs and traditions at New Delhi and after their marriage, they started living together at Guahati at petitioner’s residence. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent No.1 got married in Tinsukia on 20.11.2022 as per Jain customs and rituals. However, according to the petitioner things between the petitioner and respondent No.1 became sour and their marriage irretrievably broke down on account of temperamental issues of respondent No.1. The petitioner submits that he was not even informed about the birth, gender or health of the child who he believes to have taken birth on or around 10.10.2023. Thereafter, petitioner approached Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide W.P.(C) 6088/2023 which was disposed of vide order dated 13.10.2023 granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority in New Delhi. Subsequently, on 14.10.2023, the petitioner approached respondent No.4/Deputy Commissioner of Police, South-West District Delhi for seeking police protection and upon his advice, the petitioner made a representation before the SHO, Delhi Cantonment, New Delhi. Following this, the petitioner filed an application seeking police protection for himself to visit the house of respondent No.1 before learned MM, Patiala House Court, New Delhi but the same was withdrawn by the petitioner as it was not maintainable. The petitioner submits that on 17.10.2023, he made a phone call to respondent No.1 and requested her to allow him to visit her in order to see his child, however, respondent No.1 abused him and did not 17:40 allow him to visit. Aggrieved by this, the present petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon para 21 in the case of Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2020) 3 SCC 67 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
4. Admittedly, the child is with wife of the petitioner- respondent No.1. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of Habeas Corpus which is to be filed when a person is in illegal detention. In the present case, petitioner has not placed any order of the Court in his favour. Thus, the child is not illegally detained by respondent No.1 who is mother of the alleged missing child. It seems that the petitioner is not sincere about the custody of the child as he should have filed a petition for the custody and visitation rights of the child before the learned Family Court as per law. The present petition arises out of a family dispute and such type of petitions, are sheer misuse of judicial process and waste of public time.
5. The present petition is accordingly dismissed being not maintainable, however, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the learned Family Court as per law.
6. Even though the present petition has already been dismissed, however, Mr. Somiran Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner continued to address irrelevant arguments and despite warning by this Court, he did not 17:40 leave the Court. Thus, he has wasted precious public time. We depreciate such type of practice and impose a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon him which shall be paid before the learned Registrar General of this Court within two weeks to be recovered under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954. (SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (SHALINDER KAUR)
JUDGE DECEMBER 11, 2023 17:40