RAJIV BHATIA ETC. versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 280 · Decided: 09-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAJIV BHATIA ETC. 
v. 
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1999 
B 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.l 
Constitution of lndia--Art. 226-Habeas Corpus-Writ petition filed 
by the natural mother praying for production of her child who she alleged 
was taken away by her in-laws-Counter allegation that the child was given 
C in adoption to in-laws by a proper deed-Held : In a petition for Habeas 
Corpus, High Court cannot examine the legality of adoption deed-Appellant 
cannot invoke jurisdiction of two High Courts at the same time on the same 
matter-However, since child wished to be with natural mother, custody 
given to her till the question of adoption is settled. 
D 
One P filed a Habeas Corpus petition before Delhi High Court for 
production of her daughter who, she alleged, was in the illegal custody of her 
brother-in-law challenging the deed of adoption based on which the respondents 
kept the child with them. She had filed a similar petition before the Rajasthan 
High Court. The Delhi High Court, after examining the legality of the 
E adoption deed, and while finding that there were no infirmities, however held 
that it did not inspire confidence, that misrepresentation cannot be ruled out, 
that no ceremonial gift was performed, directed custody of the child to be 
with the natural mother till civil proceedings were decided. Hence this 
appeal 
F 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that High Court could not 
examine the legality of the adoption deed; that the mother having already 
filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in Rajasthan High Court could not file a 
similar petition in the Delhi High Court; that the natural mother was not 
illiterate and having signed the adoption deed cannot now go back on it. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court, in a petition for Habeas Corpus is not 
entitled to examine the legality of the deed of adoption and then come to the 
conclusion one way or the other with regard to the custody of the child. The 
High Court has lost sight of the fact that the petition was one for issuance 
H of Writ of Habeas Corpus and not for custody of child. [284-A-Bl 
280 
.. ' 
( 
RAJIV BHATIA ETC. v. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI [PATTANAIK, J.] 281 
2. In view of the conclusion that the child does not want to talk to A 
adoptive parents, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the directions 
of the High Court allowing the custody of the child to the natural mother 
until appropriate decision of competent forum is obtained with regard to the 
validity of the adoption deed as well as the custody of the child in question. 
Any observations made by the Delhi High Court in the impugned judgment 
with regard to the validity of the registered deed of adoption or with regard B 
to the suitability of the custody of the child will not be binding in the pending 
proceedings. [284-D-E) 
3. The mother having filed the petition for Habeas Corpus in Rajasthan 
High Court, was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Delhi High C 
Court. That apart the manner in which the High Court of Delhi appears to 
have issued direction to the SHO concerned to produce the child indicates 
that the entire episode is by way of stage maneuvring. [284-B-C) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 
922 of 1999 Etc. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.3.99 of the Delhi High Court in 
CrJ. W.P. No. 128of1999. 
D.N. Goburdhan, Ms. Pinky Anand and Ms. Geeta Luthra for the 
Appellants. 
Ms. Kamini Jaiswal for the Respondent. 
Ms. Binu Tamta for Ms. Sushma Suri for Govt. of Delhi. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PATTANAIK, J. Delay condoned in filing the special leave petition. 
Leave granted. 
E 
F 
These appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the judgment G 
dated 11.3.99 by the Division 'Bench of the Delhi High Court in a writ of 
habeas corpus filed by the natural mother of a young girl, named Akansha. 
The undisputed facts are that Priyanka had married Amit in April, 1993. Out 
of their wedlock, two girl children 'Akansha and Jayanti' were born. The 
husband of Priyanka was a Preventive Officer in the Customs Department of 
the Government of India. The said Priyanka filed the petition for issuance of H 
282 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A writ of habeas corpus alleging therein that her daughter, Akansha is in illegal 
custody of Rajiv, the elder brother of her husband and the said Akansha 
should be produced in C
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.