Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1748 (RAJ)

Asha Teji v. State of Rajasthan

2021-09-17

RAMESHWAR VYAS, SANDEEP MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The parties are present in the Court. The corpus child ?K? is present in the Court with the petitioner being her mother. The child seems to be visibly very happy and content in the arms of the mother. 2. Considering the observations made by this Court in the order dated 13.08.2021, we hereby make the interim arrangement directing that the custody of the minor child ?K? shall remain with the petitioner herein to be absolute until otherwise directed. We are informed that the petitioner has filed proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act seeking monetary and other reliefs against the respondent No.3 and the notices of those proceedings could be served on the respondent Shri Vikram Ingle with great deal of efforts. The next date fixed therein is 24.09.2021. 3. Shri Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent, on the instructions of his client, who is present in the Court, assures that the appearance on his behalf shall be put in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur, where the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act are pending. 4. We hereby direct that these proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously. In case, the respondent Shri Vikram Ingle or his duly appointed counsel fails to appear in the proceedings, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed ex-parte without waiting for the presence of the respondent. 5. The petitioner shall allow the respondent No.3 and his parents, who are present in the Court today to meet the child for a reasonable period of time at the Mediation Centre, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. 6. The respondent No.3 present in the Court has offered through his counsel that he shall pay interim maintenance of Rs.25,000 to the petitioner towards maintenance to the child. The said amount may be deposited in the Bank account of the petitioner, the details whereof shall be provided by Shri Firoz Khan, learned counsel representing the petitioner to Shri Rathore, learned counsel representing the respondent No.3. 7. With the above observations, the Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of. The Rule is made absolute.