Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
NEHA DAS ..... Petitioner
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Tanuj Khurana, Advocate with petitioner in-person.
For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjay Lao, Standing Counsel (Criminal) along with
Ms. Priyam Agarwal, Advocate.
Mr. S. Rajappa and Mr. R. Gourishankar, Advocates for
R-6 (through video-conferencing).
Mr. Anil Panwar, Advocate for R-7.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
1. The present habeas corpus writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been instituted on behalf of Neha Das, the petitioner, praying as follows: ‘It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:a) Pass writ/order/directions in the nature of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the 7 year old son of the Petitioner namely A, and/or, b) Pass writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents to hand over the custody of child A, to the Petitioner and not to interfere with Petitioner's lawful custody and guardianship of her minor' son; and/or, c) Pass writ/order/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent no. 1to 5 to take action against Respondent no.6 to 7 for their illegal acts and omissions; and/or, d) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper;’
2. At the outset, it is relevant to highlight, that in the present habeas corpus writ petition, a joint application being CRL.M.A. 22162/2023, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed on behalf of Ms. Neha Das and Mohd. Firoz, the petitioner and the respondent no. 7 respectively herein, seeking to place on record the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) arrived at between the estranged couple, in relation to the interim custody of their minor son Master ‘A’, aged above 07 years.
3. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 11.08.2023, which is annexed as Annexure-1 with the accompanying application, reflects that both the parties have mutually agreed upon the terms and conditions specified therein, which is extracted hereinbelow: W.P.(CRL) 838/2023. A perusal of the abovementioned Memorandum of Understating reflects that the terms and conditions of the settlement arrived at, between the parties are legal and lawful; and the same be made the order of the Court. The parties have appended their signatures with the present application, which are duly supported by affidavits; and the same be taken on record.
5. Accordingly we direct, that the parties shall remain bound by their reciprocal obligations, elaborated in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 11.08.2023, and shall comply with the said terms and conditions, without demur.
6. No further relief is prayed for.
7. In view of the foregoing, the present habeas corpus writ petition, is allowed and disposed of, in the agreed terms and conditions, directing thereby that the interim arrangement arrived at, between the parties, in terms of the abovementioned Memorandum of Understanding, shall remain in place, till the time, it is modified by a court of competent jurisdiction, in accordance with law. The joint application instituted on W.P.(CRL) 838/2023 Page 11 of behalf of the parties is allowed and disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
8. Copy of this judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE)
ANISH DAYAL (JUDGE) AUGUST 18, 2023 Aanchal Click here to check corrigendum, if any