$~20 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010442872026 + W.P.(CRL) 2885/2026 ROOPESH MANGAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Parmeet Singh, Mr.Sourabh Malik, Mr.Sarthak Pandey & Mr.Dheeraj Pandey, Advs. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv. & Mr.Aman Usman, APP for the State with Mr.Abhinav Kr. Arya & Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. along with Insp. Harkesh Meena, SI Vinay Malik, PS Mahindra Park & Insp. Subhash Chander & SI Sandeep, PS Prasad Nagar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA O R D E R % 17.09.2026 CRL.M.A. 28914/2026 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. W.P.(CRL) 2885/2026 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to produce the minor child of the petitioner, who is stated to be in the custody of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:24:09 respondent no. 3, the ex-wife of the petitioner. 3. The petition itself discloses that the custody of the minor child was handed over by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 pursuant to the Compromise-cum-Settlement Agreement dated 28.01.2022, settling their matrimonial disputes. The petitioner was granted visitation rights thereunder. 4. The petitioner contends that, as respondent no. 3 has failed to honour her commitments under the Settlement Agreement, the petitioner has filed Guardianship Petition No. 48/2025 before the concerned Family Court at Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi. It is asserted that notices issued under the said petition are either being avoided or not accepted by the respondent nos. 3 and 4; and they have also shifted their residence in order to defeat the rights of the petitioner. 5. In our view, the present petition, on the basis of the above averments, where the only allegation is that respondent nos. 3 and 4 are not being served with the notice issued by the competent Court or are avoiding service, is not maintainable. If respondent nos. 3 and 4 are intentionally avoiding service, the Court hearing the Guardianship Petition is fully competent to act in accordance with law. For the said purpose, the petitioner cannot be allowed to invoke the extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In the facts of the present case, therefore, we refuse to exercise such extraordinary jurisdiction, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail of his legal remedies in accordance with law. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:24:09 7. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed, with liberty as above. NAVIN CHAWLA, J RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2026/rv/hn This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/09/2026 at 11:24:09