1 / 4 2025:CGHC:40369-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPHC No. 16 of 2025 Paramjeet Singh Chadha S/o Shri Rajender Singh Chadha, Aged About 59 Years R/o House No. 7, Bagdai Vatika, Near Vedanta City, Kandul, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantralaya, Mahandi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 Superintendent Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 Station House Officer, Police Station Mujhgahan, District Raipur (C.G.) 5 Station House Officer, Police Station Telibandha, District Raipur (C.G.) 6 Manjeet Kaur, Last Known Address - Dawda Colony, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.13 10:35:43 +0530 2 / 4 For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondents/ State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, (Chief Justice) 12.08.2025 1) Heard Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate along with Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. for the State. 2) The present petition has been filed with the following reliefs:- 10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and issue of writ of Habeas Corpus. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass an order by directing the police authorities to take action against the respondent No.6 and to produce the children namely Navleen Kaur & Nakshveer Singh before this Hon'ble Court for providing legal custody of children to the petitioner as per law. 10.3 Any appropriate writ, direction or order may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3 / 4 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with respondent No. 6 in the year 2011. He further submits that respondent No. 6 was a widow and already had one son with her first husband. He further submits that out of their wedlock twin children one boy and girl were born. He further submit that due to difference of opinion between them, they had taken mutual divorce and the decree of divorce was granted by the family Court, Raipur vide judgment dated 23.09.2024 and custody of children was granted to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the respondent No. 6 used to visit the children. He further contended that on 19.04.2025, respondent No. 6 came to visit the children and on the pretext of taking them for joyride etc took them and did not return. He further submits that the petitioner tried many times to contact respondent No. 6 and bring back his children but the same does not fructify, thus this petition. 4) On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that on the complaint made by the petitioner, NCR (Non-Cognizable Report) has been issued by the police. 5) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6) Considering the fact that the dispute is matrimonial in nature and relates to custody of minor children and also considering the fact that it is the trite law that habeas corpus is not meant to examine 4 / 4 custody issues unless the detention is illegal or by a stranger. The correct remedy is to approach the family court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Thus, we do not find a good ground to entertain this petition. Hence the writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib