‘Wastage of public time’: Delhi HC dismisses Habeas Corpus plea seeking presence of petitioners' father who was residing with his second wife after first wife's demise, imposes Rs 10k cost
Justices Suresh Kumar Kait & Manoj Jain [15-04-2024]

Read Order: VAKIL MAHTO AND ANR v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ) AND OTHERS [DEL HC- W.P.(CRL) 1155/2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, April 18, 2024: The Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on the petitioners while dismissing a Habeas Corpus petition seeking production of their father before the Court on the ground that the father’s second wife was not allowing them to meet him.

The Bench was considering a Habeas Corpus petition praying for a direction to the Respondents to produce Lalan Mehto S/o Nikhandi Mehto before the Court either dead or alive so that the petitioners may be sure that their father is living like a free citizen in the company of respondent No. 4 who are not allowing to have any kind of communication of their father with the petitioners in any manner or mode or not allowing him to visit at the house of the petitioner.

At the outset, the Division Bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Manoj Jain remarked, “Curiously, though the father of the petitioners is very much alive, in prayer, to our astonishment, it is stated that he be produced either dead or alive.”

It was stated that the father of the petitioners had married twice. His first wife, i.e, the mother of the petitioners had already expired. It was further stated that the father of the petitioners suffered paralysis attack and since then petitioners had been taking his care.

The grievance of the petitioners was that on 10.03.2024, the respondent No.4 (second wife of the father of the petitioners) forcibly took him with her to her house in East Vinod Nagar and now the petitioner and his family members are not even being allowed to meet their father.

However, it was the case of the respondent that the petitioners have never been disallowed to meet their father but there is ruckus whenever they come to the house of respondent No.4 to meet their father.

The Status Report also showed that the petitioners visited the house of respondent No.4 and then they started arguing and abusing each other and despite the intervention of the beat staff, they came to blows and, therefore, as a preventive action parties were booked under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C.

“Taking broad overview of the matter, it becomes apparent that the present petition, which is in the nature of Habeas Corpus, is nothing but misuse of judicial process”, the Bench said.

It was noted by the Bench that the second marriage of the father of the petitioners had, reportedly, taken place way back in the year 1997 and there was nothing to suggest any sort of illegal detention, warranting the Court’s interference.

Thus, the Bench held, “The present petition amounts to misuse of judicial process and sheer wastage of public time, therefore, we, hereby, dismiss the present petition with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid/deposited in favour of Nirmal Chaya for the welfare of the destitute children. The cost be paid within two weeks from today, failing which the same shall be recovered as land revenue in accordance with law by the Registrar General of this Court.”