ABU TAHIRUD DOZA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two previous orders, namely the orders dtd. 25/4/2025 and 11/7/2025, clearly show that the Division Bench was not inclined to admit the habeas corpus petition. In fact, the latter order dtd. 11/7/2025, directed the petitioner to approach the Principal Judge, Family Court, Dhubri, Assam, in view of the alleged non-compliance with its order dtd. 27/9/2024. During the pendency of the habeas corpus petition, the Principal Judge Dhubri, Assam rejected the said application on the ground that the minor is staying along with the mother at Jowai, West Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya and in terms of Sec. 9 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, the appropriate court would be the Family Court at Jowai, West Jaintia Hills, Meghalaya.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the pendency of the proceeding under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 may not be a bar in admitting an application for habeas corpus and in this regard, he has relied upon the decisions in Gohar Begam v. Suggi alias Nazma Begam & ors (1960) AIR (SC) 93 and Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan & ors (2020) AIR (SC) 577.

(3.) In the instant case, we find that already orders have been passed by the Family Court granting a limited right of visitation and the said order is not under challenge. The writ petitioner seeks to enforce the order of the Family Court, alleging that despite best efforts and complaints being lodged with the appropriate authorities, the authorities concerned are not rendering any assistance.