Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Mandeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 25 July, 2022

Sewa Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 November, 2023

8. The distinction between Section 42 & 43 of the Act has been considered in detail by this High Court in Mandeep Kaur v. State of Punjab (supra), wherein the Court also discussed distinction between the facts of Boota Singh's case (as relied by counsel for the petitioner in this case) and the Page N: 4 of 12 Pages 4 of 12 ::: Downloaded on - 08-11-2023 03:58:38 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:140637 2023:PHHC:140637 CRM-M-41618-2023 facts similar to the present case and then held as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heena Verma vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 25 October, 2024

given some visitation rights, rights, so that it can be stated that by separating the child from the petitioner or denying her vis visitation itation rights, respondent No. 4 has defied the said order. So far as the ratio of law laid down in Mandeep Kaur's Kaur case (supra) and Vineet Gupta's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not disputed at all. However, the same is not applicab applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as in Mandeep Kaur Kaur's 's case (supra), the age of the child was found to be below 05 years. T Therefore, in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as per which, the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 05 years should ordinarily be with the mother, mother, the custody of the child was directed to be given to her mother by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus. Similarly, the ratio of law laid down in Vineet V Gupta's 's case (supra) that the adulterous spouse is not the incompetent parent and such fact cannot be made a sole ground for denying custody of the child is also not disputed but the petitioner can take this plea in a petition filed under the Guardians Guardians and Wards Act and not in the present petition as in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is only required to see whether the child is detained by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody, custody, which cannot be ssaid aid in the present case as respondent No. 4 is admittedly natural father of the child.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Heena Verma vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 26 October, 2024

given some visitation rights, rights, so that it can be stated that by separating the child from the petitioner or denying her vis visitation itation rights, respondent No. 4 has defied the said order. So far as the ratio of law laid down in Mandeep Kaur's Kaur case (supra) and Vineet Gupta's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not disputed at all. However, the same is not applicab applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as in Mandeep Kaur Kaur's 's case (supra), the age of the child was found to be below 05 years. T Therefore, in view of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, as per which, the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 05 years should ordinarily be with the mother, mother, the custody of the child was directed to be given to her mother by issuing a writ of Habeas Corpus. Similarly, the ratio of law laid down in Vineet V Gupta's 's case (supra) that the adulterous spouse is not the incompetent parent and such fact cannot be made a sole ground for denying custody of the child is also not disputed but the petitioner can take this plea in a petition filed under the Guardians Guardians and Wards Act and not in the present petition as in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is only required to see whether the child is detained by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody, custody, which cannot be ssaid aid in the present case as respondent No. 4 is admittedly natural father of the child.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surabhi Bhasin vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 April, 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 4 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child from the petitioner and the act of respondent No. 4 is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to thee petitioner as well as child as he was of tender age and needed the care and company of his mother for his upbringing. The petitioner had filed a divorce petition against against respondent No. 4 before the competent Court, which is pending. While submitting that respondent No. 4 is mistreating treating the minor child and not maintaining him properly, properly it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued for release of the alleged detenue detenue. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2024 SCC Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC Online P&H &H 4267, 4267 CRWP-9996-2020,, titled as Ramita Rani vs. State of Punjab and others, others, decided on 02.03.2021, CRWP-8319-2020,, titled as Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others others,, decided on 10.05.2021 and CRWP-3013 3013-2020, titled as Neha vs. State of Haryana and oothers,, decided on 01.06.2020.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Singh Bhanot vs State Of Punjab And Others on 10 December, 2025

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No. 4 has forcibly taken the custody of the minor child from the petitioner and the act of respondent No. 4 is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to the petitioner as well as child as he was of tender age and needed the care and company of his father for his upbringing. While submitting that the private respondents are mistreating the minor child and not maintaining him properly, it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued for release of the alleged detenue. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court rendered in Kamaldeep Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2024 SCC Online P&H 8923, Rashneet Kaur vs. State of Haryana and others : 2022 SCC Online P&H 4267, CRWP-9996-2020, titled as Ramita Rani vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 02.03.2021, CRWP-8319-2020, titled as Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab : 2021 SCC Online P&H 1060.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Bansal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 18 October, 2024

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in CRWP-8319-2020, CRWP 2020, titled as Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 10.05.2021, besides placing reliance upon Anmol 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 24-10-2024 06:42:43 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136868 CRWP-9429 9429-2023 (O&M) -4-
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Veenus Rani vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 21 February, 2025

9. In the present case, there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner and respondent No. 4 are the biological parents of alleged detenues, detenue who were born out of their wedlock.. Hence, their custody with either of the parents cannot be stated to be illegal in any manner. The children were earlier in the custody of respondent No. 4. However, as per wishes of the parties, they were handed over to the petitioner on 23.01.2025 and thereafter, on the direction of this Court, they are continuing to be with the petitioner. This Court has been apprised that none of the part parties has approached the appropriate forum by filing a petition under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of the children. Hence, it is explicit that none of the parties has any authority of law to have exclusive custody of the th children. So it can be stated that by having custody of the children, respondent No. 4 or the petitioner has not defied any order, which was operative against them. Hence, the petition is not the proper remedy to seek custody of the children. So far as the ratio of law laid down in Mandeep Kaur's case (supra) is concerned, the same is not disputed at all.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 23 February, 2026

2. The petitioner-father, Gurdeep Singh, is a law-abiding citizen originally from District Patiala and presently a permanent resident of Denmark, who has approached this Hon'ble Court through his Special Power of Attorney holder seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus for production and custody of his minor son, Gursher Singh, aged about 4 years. The minor, a Danish citizen by birth, was residing in Denmark and was under the lawful custody of the petitioner pursuant to an order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Agency of Family Law, Denmark granting temporary custody to him. It is alleged that respondent no. 7-mother removed the child from Denmark in violation of the said order, fled from a Crisis Centre along with the minor, and brought him to District Patiala, where he is presently being kept in the custody of private respondents no. 5 and 6. Despite representation dated 31.03.2025 to the SSP, Patiala and subsequent proceedings, no effective action was taken for restoration of custody, compelling the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court for recovery of the minor child from alleged illegal detention and for securing his welfare and safety. It is well settled that a writ of habeas corpus in matters relating to custody of a minor child is maintainable and the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. Reliance is placed upon Mandeep Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2021 (1) RCR (Civil) 152, wherein it was observed that exercise of writ jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters involving custody of a minor is guided primarily by the welfare of the child and is not confined merely to the question of legality of detention and Neha vs. State of Haryana, 2020 (4) RCR (Civil) 643, wherein it was held that the availability of an alternative ANU 2026.02.24 15:34 I am the author of this document Chandigarh CRWP-11509-2025 (O&M) 3 remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in matters concerning custody of a minor child.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next