Gujarat High Court High Court

Binaben vs State on 30 August, 2010

Gujarat High Court
Binaben vs State on 30 August, 2010
Author: A.M.Kapadia,&Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice J.C.Upadhyaya,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCR.A/1579/2010	 3/ 3	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1579 of 2010
 

 
=========================================================

 

BINABEN
RUKESHBHAI SALAT - Applicant(s)
 

Versus
 

STATE
OF GUJARAT & 5 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
SHRIKAR
H BHATT for
Applicant(s) : 1, 
MR KL PANDYA, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for
Respondent(s) : 1, 
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for Respondent(s) : 2, 
MR
BHAVIK J PANDYA, for Respondent(s) : 3 -
6. 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
		
	

 

Date
: 30/08/2010 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA)

By
filing instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioner – Binaben Rukeshbhai Salat, the wife of
respondent No.3 (husband) has prayed to issue writ of Habeas Corpus,
directing the respondent No.3 – Rukeshbhai Chhaganbhai Salat
to produce the corpus – minor girl Shilpa, who is aged about 2
years, who is in illegal custody of respondent No.3 – husband
and the petitioner has been compelled to leave her matrimonial home.

The
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 20.08.2010 has
passed following order:-

“Rule
returnable on 27.8.2010. Respondent No.2 shall ensure that corpus
Shilpa is produced on the next date. It is also observed that if
the respondent Nos.3 to 6 are desirous to produce the corpus before
this Court, they shall be at liberty to produce her on the next date.
Mr. Pandya, learned AGP waives Notice for respondent No.1. Direct
service for respondent No.2. Remaining respondents to be served
through concerned Police Station.”

Thereafter,
on returnable date, upon request of learned AGP, the matter was
adjourned to 09.09.2010 as the statement was made to the effect that
the corpus and other persons are residents of other police station.

Today
in the morning, Mr.B.J. Pandya, learned advocate for respondent
No.3, made a statement to the effect that respondent No.3 along with
corpus – Shilpa is present and prays to take up the matter for
final hearing at 2.30 p.m., as respondent No.3 is willing to
handover the corpus – Shilpa, who is minor girl, aged about 2
years to the petitioner. Therefore, upon his request, the matter is
taken up.

We
have heard Mr.S.H.Bhatt, learned advocate for the applicant,
Mr.B.J.Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No.3 as well as
Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned AGP for respondent No.1.

During
the course of hearing, we have ascertained the wish and willingness
of respondent No.3 Rukeshbhai Chhaganbhai Salat, who has
unequivocally stated that he is ready to handover the custody of
corpus – Shilpa to the petitioner. The petitioner –
Binaben Rukeshbhai Salat is also present with her advocate. Upon
asking Binaben Rukeshbhai Salat, she is willing to accept the
custody of corpus – Shilpa.

In
view of this, respondent No.3 is directed to handover the custody of
minor girl Shilpa to petitioner – Binaben Rukeshbhai Salat.

The
custody of minor girl Shilpa is handed over to the petitioner in
presence of Mr.S.H.Bhatt, learned advocate for the petitioner,
Mr.B.J.Pandya, learned advocate for the respondent No.3 and
Mr.K.L.Pandya, learned AGP.

For
the foregoing reasons, the Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. Rule
is made absolute.

(A.M.KAPADIA,
J.)

(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)

(binoy)

   

Top