Full Text
Translation output
$~S-4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL)42/2022and CRL.M.A.458/2022(Exemption)
AVNEESH CHAUDHARY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Soni, Advocate with petitioner in- person.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OFDELHIAT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL)42/2022and CRL.M.A.458/2022(Exemption)
AVNEESH CHAUDHARY Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajendra Prasad Soni, Advocate with petitioner in- person.
VERSUS
STATE OFDELHI&ANR. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao,Standing Counsel
(Criminal), GNCTD with Mr. Karanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the State with S.I. Uday Singh, P.S.: Samaipur Badli.
Ms. Deepti Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent
No.2in-person.
Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao,Standing Counsel
(Criminal), GNCTD with Mr. Karanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the State with S.I. Uday Singh, P.S.: Samaipur Badli.
Ms. Deepti Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2 with respondent
No.2in-person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
% 31.01.2022
The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of Video
Conferencing on account ofCOVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, for a direction to his wife Mrs. Ruchika Chaudhary, who is respondent
No. 2 in the present proceedings, to produce their minor daughter Ms. Harshita Chaudhary, aged about 15 years; and to permit the petitioner to meet his daughter. The essential allegation is that the petitioner/husband is estranged from his wife; that parties have been living apart for over a
W.P.(CRL)42/2022 Page 1 of3
2022:DHC:5988-DB year; and that the wife is not permitting the petitioner to meet their daughter.
Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is present along with the petitioner; and they have drawn the attention of this court inter-alia to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.10.2020 signed between the estranged couple, which contemplates that the parties will apply for divorce by mutual consent, and that though the daughter will live with the wife,the wife will always peraiit the petitioner to meet their daughter at a time and place oftheir choice.
Ms. Deepti Dogra, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent No.2 along with the said respondent as also the minor daughter Ms. Harshita Chaudhary; and upon being queried, they submit that the difficulty in allowing the petitioner to meet his daughter,is that the petitioner gets aggressive and abusive in the presence of the young girl, which is not acceptable to respondent No.2.
Ms. Dogra has further informed the court that a petition filed by the mother seeking custody ofthe minor daughter is already underway in the court of Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Principal Judge Family Courts, North
Rohini, New Delhi vide petition No.29/2021, wherein the petitioner has been served.
Considering the overall circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate, by way of an interim arrangement, to permit the petitioner/father to meet his daughter Ms. Harshita Chaudhary on every
Saturday between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the Rohini Court Mediation
Centre,in the presence of counsel appearing for both parties. We direct
W.P.(CRL)42/2022 Page 2of3
5^ that this arrangement shall enure until it is altered or modified by an order of a competent court seized ofthe custody petition, as stated to be pending between the parties.
We further caution the petitioner to ensure that his meetings and interaction with his daughterremain/civil,giving no causefor complaint
' to his wife or daughter.
No further directions are called for.
With the above directions, the present habeas corpus petition is satisfied and disposed of.
Pending applications,ifany,also stand disposed of.
A copy ofthe order be sent to learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe parties, by electronic mail.
A copy be also forwarded to the Judge In-charge, Mediation
Centre,Rohini Courts,New Delhi,forinformation and compliance.
The order be also uploaded on the website ofthis comiforthwith.
™dharth mridul,j.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J.
JANUARY 31, Click here to check corrigendum, ifany
W.P.(CRL)42/2022 ^ ^
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
% 31.01.2022
The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of Video
Conferencing on account ofCOVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, for a direction to his wife Mrs. Ruchika Chaudhary, who is respondent
No. 2 in the present proceedings, to produce their minor daughter Ms. Harshita Chaudhary, aged about 15 years; and to permit the petitioner to meet his daughter. The essential allegation is that the petitioner/husband is estranged from his wife; that parties have been living apart for over a
W.P.(CRL)42/2022 Page 1 of3
2022:DHC:5988-DB year; and that the wife is not permitting the petitioner to meet their daughter.
Mr. Rajendra Soni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is present along with the petitioner; and they have drawn the attention of this court inter-alia to a Memorandum of Understanding dated 28.10.2020 signed between the estranged couple, which contemplates that the parties will apply for divorce by mutual consent, and that though the daughter will live with the wife,the wife will always peraiit the petitioner to meet their daughter at a time and place oftheir choice.
Ms. Deepti Dogra, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent No.2 along with the said respondent as also the minor daughter Ms. Harshita Chaudhary; and upon being queried, they submit that the difficulty in allowing the petitioner to meet his daughter,is that the petitioner gets aggressive and abusive in the presence of the young girl, which is not acceptable to respondent No.2.
Ms. Dogra has further informed the court that a petition filed by the mother seeking custody ofthe minor daughter is already underway in the court of Sh. Sanjay Jindal, Principal Judge Family Courts, North
Rohini, New Delhi vide petition No.29/2021, wherein the petitioner has been served.
Considering the overall circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate, by way of an interim arrangement, to permit the petitioner/father to meet his daughter Ms. Harshita Chaudhary on every
Saturday between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the Rohini Court Mediation
Centre,in the presence of counsel appearing for both parties. We direct
W.P.(CRL)42/2022 Page 2of3
5^ that this arrangement shall enure until it is altered or modified by an order of a competent court seized ofthe custody petition, as stated to be pending between the parties.
We further caution the petitioner to ensure that his meetings and interaction with his daughterremain/civil,giving no causefor complaint
' to his wife or daughter.
No further directions are called for.
With the above directions, the present habeas corpus petition is satisfied and disposed of.
Pending applications,ifany,also stand disposed of.
A copy ofthe order be sent to learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe parties, by electronic mail.
A copy be also forwarded to the Judge In-charge, Mediation
Centre,Rohini Courts,New Delhi,forinformation and compliance.
The order be also uploaded on the website ofthis comiforthwith.
™dharth mridul,j.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI,J.
JANUARY 31, Click here to check corrigendum, ifany
W.P.(CRL)42/2022 ^ ^
JUDGMENT