Deepa Singhal v. Sudha Singhal & Anr

ORDER %

21.11.2011 This petition has been preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 11 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging deliberate and willful, breach of the order dated 05.10.2011 passed in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1081/2011. That writ petition has been preferred by the petitionerto seek a writ of Habeas Corpus for production of her husband Mr. Achint Singhal. On

05.10.2011, both Mr. Achint Singhal and his mother, who was respondent No. 4 in that petition, appeared before the Court. The Court was informed that Mr. Achint Singhal is undergoing treatment at the Out Patient Department (OPD) of Psychiatry at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS). The Court enquired from Mr. Achint Singhal as also from his mother Mrs. Sudha Singhal, who was respondent No. 4 in those proceedings, as to whether Mr. Achint Singhal is regularly taking the prescribed medicines and both have answered in the Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. affirmative. The Court had also enquired from Mr. Achint Singhal as to where he would like to reside and he stated that he would like to stay with his mother, i.e. respondent No. 4. He also gave his address to the Court. In view of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition was disposed of as not pressed. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner thereafter preferred proceedingsunder the Protectionof Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Notice was issued in those proceedings. The same was taken to be served at the address furnished to the Division Bench in the writ proceedings and the premises were found locked. The learned MM in his order dated 31.10.2011 records that it seems that the respondents in domestic violence proceedings are deliberately avoiding the service to appear before the Court and also trying to conceal themselves. The respondents have been proceeded ex-parte in those proceedings. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid conduct of the respondents tantamounts to willful breach of the order dated 05.10.2011. In my view, there is absolutely no merit in this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The writ proceedings were initiated for production of Mr. Achint Singhal, who was, apparently, not to be found at the relevant time. He was produced in those proceedings and he himself voluntarily made a statement that he would like to continue to reside with his mother. The order does not record any undertaking^orany directionof the Courtthat l^/lr. AchintSinghalor his mother shall continue to reside at the address furnished by them and shall not change their address. In any event, merely because the service report records that the premises were found locked when the Process Server approached the given address for service, it does not mean that there was any breach of the order. Dismissed. NOVEMBER 21, 2011 'BSR' VIPIN SANGHI, J Yc^J.1 0 Qp\tc

-0 29. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 844/2011 DEEPA SINGHAL Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person with her counsel Mr. Yashvardhan. versus SUDHA SINGHAL&ANR Respondents Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI