PREETI DEVI W/O MUKESH SAINI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
HC/16/2025 · 2025-01-21
Pankaj Bhandari, Shubha Mehta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3968 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 3968 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 16/2025 Preeti Devi W/o Mukesh Saini, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Karundali Ki Dhani, 5 No. Bus Stand, Kunda, Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302028. ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 3. Deputy Commissioner Of Police, North, Jaipur. 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Mahila (North), Jaipur. 5. Additional Director General Of Police, Anti Human Trafficking Unit, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Sharma Kamdar Mr. Haresh Meena For State For Paternal grand- parents of corpus : : : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum-AAG with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Additional Govt. Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. Govt. Advocate, Mr. Sudesh Saini, Additional Govt. Advocate Ms. Neha Goyal, Mr. Kshitiz Tiwari Ms. Antim Sharma, Police Inspector, SHO Amer Mr. Pallav Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 21/01/2025
1. Petitioner has preferred this habeas corpus petition seeking production of corpus who happens to be minor daughter aged eleven years and son aged seven and half years. (2 of 3) [HC-16/2025]
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that after demise of petitioner’s husband, petitioner was expelled from her matrimonial house, however, her children were retained by her father-in-law and mother-in-law. It is also contended that petitioner’s father-in-law and mother-in-law are having ill-feelings for the petitioner as petitioner’s husband died due to kidney disease and petitioner could not donate her kidney and kidney was donated by daughter of her father-in-law and mother-in-law. 3. A direction was given to produce the corpus and corpus has been produced before the Court. 4. Youtube channel of the girl aged 11 years was shown to the Court. From perusal of which, it is evident that girl child is not being looked after properly by paternal grand-parents. Grand- parents are aware that some videos have been uploaded but they are not bothered to keep a check on the girl child. 5. From interaction with children, it is revealed that phone of petitioner’s husband was used for making the videos and the earning of the same was also received by son of sister-in-law of petitioner. 6.
Boy child aged seven and half years does not appear to be medically fit as he has swelling in both the hands and face and he has not been shown to a doctor for pretty long time. Thus, it is apparent that both the children are not being properly looked after by paternal grand-parents. 7. Welfare of the child is paramount consideration for deciding the custody of the children in habeas corpus petition. Petitioner is a graduate and her father is an agriculturist who is having farms at Amer. Petitioner is doing the stitching work and has stated that
(3 of 3) [HC-16/2025] she will look after her children and children are not willing to go with her as she objects to the children using mobile and also objects to boy child eating junk food. 8. Since, father of the corpus has expired, petitioner-mother is the only natural guardian who is entitled to custody of the children. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that both paternal grand parents are illiterate and children are not being taken care of properly, we deem it proper to hand over the custody of the children to the petitioner-mother. 9. Habeas Corpus Petition is accordingly, dispose of. 10. Custody of the children is handed over to petitioner-mother of the children. 11. Paternal grand-parents will have a right to visit the children every Sunday and even take children from 12.00 pm to 5.00 pm on Sunday. However, they are required to send back the children to the petitioner by 5 pm. 12. Ms. Antim Sharma, Police Inspector, SHO Amer is directed to safely escort the children to the house of petitioner i.e. house of maternal grand-parents. 13. A copy of this order be handed over to learned GA-cum-AAG for necessary compliance. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J HEENA/01