BHUSHAN KADAM Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition is filed for a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Respondents to investigate and report the whereabouts of Petitioner's minor son Shreyansh Kadam and produce him before this Court. Respondent No. 3 is the ex-wife of the Petitioner and mother of Shreyansh.

(2.) We had heard this matter on 15/6/2023. On that day, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 had made a statement that Respondent No. 3 had remarried and had shifted to Udupi. It was further stated on instructions of Respondent No. 3 that it was open for the Petitioner to visit and meet their son Shreyansh on 23rd and 24/6/2023 at the address furnished by Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner's Advocate. Pursuant to our order dated 15 th June 2023, the address of Respondent No. 3 was furnished on 22 nd June 2023. On that day, learned counsel for the Petitioner had tendered an affidavit stating that he would avail access of Shreyansh on 23 rd June and 24/6/2023 at the venue and time decided by this Court and had given an undertaking not to take Shreyansh out of the jurisdiction of the Udupi. Thus, by our order dated 22 nd June 2023, the said affidavit of the Petitioner was taken on record, and accordingly, the Petitioner was permitted to meet Shreyansh and take him out on 23 rd and 24/6/2023, i.e. from 2.00 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. on 23 rd June 2023 and from 10.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 24 th June 2023. The matter was directed to be listed for recording compliance on 27 th June 2023.

(3.) However, on 23/6/2023, the matter was mentioned before us by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the same was taken up on the production board. On that day, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that despite our order dated 22 nd June 2023, permitting the Petitioner to meet Shreyansh on 23 rd June 2023, the said direction was not complied with by Respondent No. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that the Petitioner was not allowed to meet Shreyansh despite our order dated 22 nd June 2023, and thus, the Petitioner was not aware of the whereabouts of Shreyansh. In such circumstances, by order dated 23 rd June 2023, we had directed Respondent No. 3 to produce Shreyansh before this Court on 3/6/2023, i.e. today, in the event the order dated 22 nd June 2023 was not complied with.