1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:-

"A) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to produce the minor son of the petitioner, Master Adhrit, before this Hon'ble Court.

B) The Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 to 3 authorities to take appropriate action against respondents No. 4 and 5 for their illegal acts."

2. It is averred that the petitioner was married to respondent No. 4 on 30.11.2012 at village Jaswani, Tehsil and District Bilaspur, H.P. The petitioner had accompanied respondent No. 4 (husband) to his matrimonial home at Nasik and thereafter to his place of posting at Alwar. The relations between the petitioner and respondents No. 4 (husband) and 5 (mother-in-law) were not cordial from the inception of marriage.

3. The petitioner gave birth to a male child (Adhrit) on 30.12.2013 but the situation became so unbearable that she alongwith the infant had to be brought to her native place at Ghumarwin from Nasik by her mother and maternal uncle.

4. The petitioner was constrained to approach the Court under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act wherein apart from other reliefs she also claimed custody of the minor child (Adhrit). The learned Trial Court vide order dated 08.05.2018 allowed the interim custody of the minor child to the petitioner and at the same time allowed visitation right to respondent No. 4.

5. The Respondent No. 4 assailed the order of the learned Trial Court before the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, however, the appeal so filed was dismissed vide judgment dated 19.03.2019.

6. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 assailed both the aforesaid orders by filing Criminal Revision No. 327 of 2019 and even this revision petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 07.01.2022, by specifically observing that the child was in the custody of the mother when the same was taken away by respondent No. 4. This Court also made it clear that the order passed by the learned Magistrate would only amount to a temporary custody as the final adjudication is to be made by the competent Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, but no proceedings thereunder have been initiated by respondent No. 4.

7. It is further averred that after passing of the judgment by this Court on 07.01.2022, respondent No. 4 in furtherance of a conspiracy came to Bilaspur on 16/17.03.2022 and apologised to the petitioner and her parents and offered to take the petitioner and the child with him, with a promise to mend his ways and take good care of them. The petitioner in an endeavour to mend fences, agreed to accompanied respondent No. 4 alongwith the minor child. Respondent No. 4 took them to Jammu, where he was posted at that time. The petitioner alongwith the minor (Adhrit) stayed with him at Jammu for about one year but the behaviour of respondent No. 4 had not changed much and he would often ill-treat and physically abuse her under the influence of alcohol, but the petitioner tried to adjust and endure in the hope that the child was able to get attention, love and affection of both parents, but in vain.

8. Respondent No. 4 joined an IIM Course at Mumbai and left the petitioner and Adhrit with respondent No. 5 at his permanent residence at Nasik for about six months. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 came to Nasik after completing course and physically abused the petitioner and forcefully turned her out of house on 10.09.2023.

9. The petitioner sought refuge with some neighbours and later shifted to Army Guest House alongwith her son. The petitioner was later forcibly taken to Sujata Birla Hospital at Nasik by respondents No. 4 and 5 on 14.09.2023, where she was deceitfully got administered some sedative medicines and the minor child was surreptitiously and illegally taken away from her custody.

10. Respondent No. 4 telephonically informed the petitioner's family at Bilaspur to take her away from the hospital where she had been admitted. The petitioner's brother and paternal uncle rushed to Nasik to bring back the petitioner. They tried to get in touch with respondents No. 4 and 5 but they did not answer their calls. Respondents No. 4 and 5 locked the house at Nasik and their whereabouts were not known to the petitioner. The petitioner tried to find out the whereabouts of respondents No. 4 and 5, but to no avail, constraining the petitioner to lodge a complaint with the Police at Nasik as well as Police Women Cell at Nasik.

11. The petitioner came back to Bilaspur and thereafter lodged a complaint at PS Bharari in Bilaspur, but the whereabouts of respondents No. 4 and 5 and the minor child (Adhrit) could not be ascertained. The police although received the complaint, but lodged the FIR only on 17.11.2023. It is further averred that mobile numbers of respondents No. 4 and 5 though available but she is unable to contact them since her mobile number has been blocked by them. The petitioner had tried to call them from other numbers but they would disconnect the phone as soon as they got to know that it is the petitioner who is making the call.

12. It is in this background that the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the grant of the reliefs as quoted above.

13. When the matter came up for consideration on 24.11.2023, we, after going through the petition and the arguments addressed, were not even inclined to issue notice but on the restricted and limited submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is only interested to know about the well being of the minor as also the whereabouts of respondents No. 4 and 5, issued notice confined to officials-respondents No. 1 to 3, and directed them to file a status report by the next date of hearing.

14. When the matter came up for consideration on 01.12.2023, the investigating agency filed the status report but we are not satisfied with the progress made therein and directed the I.O. to remain present alongwith the relevant record on 05.12.2023. It is thereafter that the I.O. filed his report and we recorded satisfaction with regard to the progress made so far. However, we directed the State of file a fresh status report on 19.12.2023, which was accordingly done by the State and when the matter came up for consideration on 19.12.2023, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought a week's time to go through the same.

15. As observed above, the limited prayer of the petitioner at the time when the notice was issued to know the whereabouts of minor child, her husband respondent No. 4 and her mother-in-law respondent No. 5, but now the petitioner has argued that the custody of the minor be resorted to her.

16. In the status report that was filed on 19.12.2023, it has been stated that a team headed by ASI Ravi Guleria comprising of H. C. Vikas Sharma No. 98 and L.C. Manju No. 236 was constituted to find out the whereabouts of the minor in compliance to the direction passed by this Hon'ble Court and also in further investigation to FIR No. 131/23 lodged by the petitioner on 17.12.2023, under Sections 498A, 323 and 34 IPC, Police Station Bhrari.

17. The police team reached Police Station Deo Lali, camp at Nasik, where they apprised the local police of the writ petition as also the FIR and copies thereof were also given to them with a further request to cooperate in the matter. The Commissioner of Police, Nasik vide his letter No. 3165, dated 04.12.2023, directed the local police to cooperate in the investigation. With the cooperation of the local police, the police team went to Army Public School Deo Lali, where the son of the petitioner was stated to be studying and on enquiry, it was found that the minor child had been enrolled in the school vide Admission No. 20193, but had not been attending school after 04.09.2023. Whereas as per the report dated 11.09.2023, the petitioner had alleged that her husband had given beating, meaning thereby, that prior to 11.09.2023, the petitioner and respondent No. 4, even on 04.09.2023 had been residing together and the minor had not been going to school.

18. Thereafter, the police team associated mother of respondent No. 4 i.e. respondent No. 5 in investigation and recorded her statement, in which she stated that respondent No. 4 was doing some private job, but she was not aware about the company. She also stated that her son respondent No. 4 residing with his minor son (Adhrit) in a rented premises and he came home every Friday and returned back on Sundary alongwith his minor son Adhrit. Respondent No. 5 was thereafter released on bail under Section 41(1)(A) Cr.P.C. The local police certified the character of respondent No. 5 to be good and stated that there was no other case lodged against her.

19. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 was contacted over the phone and he informed that he cannot come to Nasik. The respondent No. 4 was then directed to get a whatsapp call made from the minor to the petitioner. During this call, the petitioner informed the minor that she had come alongwith the police to take him, upon which respondent No. 4 took the mobile and said that the child is perfectly all right, safe and sound and after this, informed that he could let the petitioner meet with minor child Adhrit at Vamukaam Malun Toll Post. Police Team stated that they would be reaching there by taxi and he should meet them. After this respondent No. 4 cut the conversation.

20. Thereafter, the police team hired a taxi and travelled about 170 kms. and reached Mulun Toll Post and contacted with respondent No. 4 over his mobile but his mobile was found to be switched off. It was then the service provider was contacted and asked to give location but it was informed that since the mobile had been switched off, therefore, the location could not be available. The police team thereafter searched for respondent No. 4 in the area, but he could not be found, because of which the police team was then given orders to remain in and around the Mulun Toll Post for which they had stayed in a hotel.

21. Next morning of 05.12.2023, the police team reached back at Deo Lali Camp and started further investigation. Respondent No. 4 was repeatedly contacted over telephone and was even messages were repeatedly given on whatsapp to associate himself with the investigation but the respondent mobile found to be switched off.

22. Later on 05.12.2023, respondent No. 4 gave a message to the police team on the whatsapp and stated that he had to leave for Bangalore for some urgent work and for this reason he could not join the police investigation. On repeated whatsapp conversation, finally respondent No. 4 stated that he would get the minor before the police team provided the petitioner is not with them, because she would fight and tried to impress upon the child, so that she can take the minor child away. Upon this, respondent No. 4 was informed that the petitioner would be made to stay in the hotel, upon which, respondent No. 4 agreed to get the child available at 10:00 a.m. on 07.12.2023 at Railway Station Kalyan Junction, Mumbai.

23. Thereafter, the police team went to the Kalyan Junction on 07.12.2023, where respondent No. 4 was present alongwith his minor child and was informed about the pendency of the writ petition and orders passed thereupon and also the FIR. The statement of respondent No. 4 was recorded wherein he disclosed that his wife i.e. petitioner was suffering from some mental disease, for the treatment whereof she was admitted at Sujata Birla Hospital on 14.09.2023, but on 16.09.2023, brother and uncle of the petitioner came and got her discharged and took her to village Jaswani. He further disclosed that he has old mother, who is staying at the permanent address because of which he takes the minor to his work-place where he is imparted tuition. The local police certified the character of respondent No. 4 and stated that apart from the instant case there is no other case registered against him and the status report has been summed up as under:-

It is requested to the Hon'ble High Court that the respondent No. 4. Somnath Palde, has retired from Indian army on voluntary retirement as a lieutenant Colonel since, September, 2023 and is a permanent resident of House No. C-2, Vaishnav Pushp, Sansari Village, Devlali, Nasik, Mumbai and living with her mother (Tai) namely Smt. Sushila Sant Palde, respondent No. 5, and child Adrit Somnath. Respondent No. 4, Somnath Palde is presently working as a Senior Manager in the Event Management Company, headquarter at 402-B, Druv Building Gulmohar Road Juhu, Mumbai and having mobile No. 75881-19952 and works from home. In case of any event organized, he visits the place occasionally as well. The Child, Adrit Somnath is presently residing with his father, Somnath Palde, deferent No.4, in a rented house i.e. flat No. 1302 L- Varaslona Puranik City, Thane (Mumbai). whose owner is Neeraj Yadav having mobile No. 98903-26002 and doing well. The child used to come with his father to his own residential house situated at Sansari village Devlali, Nasik on every Friday and goes back with his father on Sunday. The child, Adrit Somnath has been found to be enrolled against admission No. 20193 in class five in Army Public School Devlali, Nasik. But, as per the certificate issued by the School, the child, Adrit Somnath has not been found to come to School since, 4th September, 2023, who is presently found to be taking education through tuition, whereas, according to the petitioner Pooja Somnath Palde, she was beaten up by her husband on 11.09.2023, but before 11.09.2023, both husband and wife were living together till 04.09.2023, and even during their stay together, the child had not been going to School since, 04.09.2023. respondent No.4, Somnath Palde, and defendant No. 5. Smt. Sushila Sant Palde have been associated in the inquiry or investigation at Railway Station Kalyan Junction, Mumbai and Police Station Devlali Camp Nasik, respectively and the police team has made face to face interaction with the child, Adrit Somnath at Railway Station Kalyan Junction, Mumbai, the child is doing well.

24. Thus, what would be clearly evident from the aforesaid narration of fact is that the cause of action, if any, in favour of the petitioner arose at Nasik i.e. in the State of Maharashtra and no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.

25. Article 226 of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

"226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.

(1) Notwithstanding anything in article 32, every High Court shall have power, throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari, or any of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose.

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories.

(3) Where any party against whom an interim order, whether by way of injunction or stay or in any other manner, is made on, or in any proceedings relating to, a petition under clause (1), without-

(a) furnishing to such party copies of such petition and all documents in support of the plea for such interim order; and

(b) giving such party an opportunity of being heard, makes an application to the High Court for the vacation of such order and furnishes a copy of such application to the party in whose favour such order has been made or the counsel of such party, the High Court shall dispose of the application within a period of two weeks from the date on which it is received or from the date on which the copy of such application is so furnished, whichever is later, or where the High Court is closed on the last day of that period, before the expiry of the next day afterwards on which the High Court is open; and if the application is not so disposed of, the interim order shall, on the expiry of that period, or, as the case may be, the expiry of the said next day, stand vacated.

(4) The power conferred on a High Court by this article shall not be in derogation of the power conferred on the Supreme Court by clause (2) of article 32."

26. Even though there can be no quarrel with the position in law that habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor child is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, in the present case, it must be observed that the Court that exercises its territorial jurisdiction over the minor child (Adhrit) will be the Court where latter ordinarily resides in terms of the provisions of the Family Court Act, 1984 and, in particular, provisions of Section 7(g), which reads as under:-

7. Jurisdiction-(1) subject to the other provisions of this Act, a Family Court shall-

(a) xxxxx

(b) xxxxx

(c) xxxxx

(d) xxxxx

(e) xxxxx

(f) xxxxx

(g) a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor."

27. A bare reading of the above provision clearly specifies that where the Family Court has been established for any area, no District Court or any subordinate Civil Court shall in relation to such area have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of any suit or proceedings referred to, in the explanation which includes Clause (g) extracted above.

28. Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, reads as under:-

"Section 9 in The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890

9. Court having jurisdiction to entertain application.--

(1) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides.

(2) If the application is with respect to the guardianship of the property of the minor, it may be made either to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides or to a District Court having jurisdiction in a place where he has property.

(3) If an application with respect to the guardianship of the property of a minor is made to a District Court other than that having jurisdiction in the place where the minor ordinarily resides, the Court may return the application if in its opinion the application would be disposed of more justly or conveniently by any other District Court having jurisdiction."

29. The aforesaid section deals with jurisdiction of the Court to entertain application, which makes it clear that application in respect of guardianship of a person of a minor requires to be filed, where the minor ordinarily resides, the jurisdiction of a Court is determined by law, not by consideration of expediency or convenience or choices of party, who invoke jurisdiction of such Court.

30. The Hindu Minority and Guardians Act, 1956 as also the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 are general and Central Acts. The Family Courts Act, 1984, though a Central Act, is a special Act and thereby will have a precedence over other Acts. The Family Courts are established with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters concerned therewith. As the Family Courts Act, 1984, excludes the jurisdiction of the District Courts in respect of proceedings relating to the guardianship of a person or custody of, or access to, any minor the forum for application would be the Family court established for the area where the minor resides.

31. We may at this stage fruitfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India 2014:INSC:534 : (2014) 9 SCC 329, [LQ/SC/2014/795] wherein it was observed as under:-

"19. Regard being had to the discussion made hereinabove, there cannot be any doubt that the question whether or not cause of action wholly or in part for filing a writ petition has arisen within the territorial limit of any High Court has to be decided in the light of the nature and character of the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. In order to maintain a writ petition, the petitioner has to establish that a legal right claimed by him has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial limit of the Court's jurisdiction."

32. In view of the law laid down in Nawal Kishore Sharma's case (supra), with regard to the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition including a writ of habeas corpus, we are not satisfied from the facts pleaded in support of the cause of action in the present case that these facts constitute that a cause of action has arisen in favour of the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, so as to empower us to decide a dispute, which has admittedly arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court.

33. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that no part of the claim falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as the child even as per the petitioner has been residing outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court on and w.e.f. 16/17th March, 2022. The act of deprivation of the minor's custody and residence thus, arose at Nasik in the State of Maharashtra. The petitioner has also admittedly filed a complaint in this regard with the Police authority as well as Police Women Cell at Nasik.

34. In view of the aforementioned reasons, we are not inclined to grant a writ of habeas corpus as prayed for by the petitioner, since this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as no cause of action or part thereof has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court so as to empower this Court to decide a dispute, as the minor child (Adhrit), whose custody is sought for, admittedly resides in Nasik, in the State of Maharashtra, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Needless to state that the petitioner is at liberty to approach competent court exercising territorial jurisdiction of the subject matter of the present proceedings. We further clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.

35. Before parting, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the Commissioner of Police, Nasik and local police team of Deo Lali for rendering necessary help to the police team of Police Station Bhrari, and we would further place on record our appreciation for the painstaking efforts made by the police team headed by ASI Ravi Guleria and comprising of H.C. Vikas Sharma No. 98 and L.C. Manju No. 236, in submitting its report in shortest possible time to this Court. Let this appreciation be entered by the quarter concerned in the service records of the aforesaid officer/officials.

36. The petition stands dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.

37. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Director General of Police, Maharashtra and Director General of Police, H.P. for compliance and necessary action.