VINOD KANWAR RATHORE Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by petitioner Vinod Kanwar Rathore, who claims that one Vimal Surana son of Shri Manna Lal Surana, who has been detained by Respondents No. 5 to 7 should be ordered to be produced before this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been living with Mr. Vimal Surana since 2011 at his residence situated at Surana Farm House, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. The petitioner's husband expired in 2007 and thereafter as per mutual consent between the petitioner and Shri Vimal Surana, they are in live in relationship as husband and wife. Respondent No. 5 is wife of Shri Vimal Surana and Respondents 6 and 7 are his daughters, who are well aware of the fact of their live in relationship and never objected to the same. Shri Vimal Surana had executed his medical undertaking giving all rights and liberty to the petitioner to maintain and take care of his health. The petitioner also executed her Medical Undertaking dated 06.09.2016 giving rights of her life, medical assistance etc. to Shri Vimal Surana. Respondent No. 5, Smt. Anita wife of Shri Vimal Surana happens to be member of Durlabh Ji Family. Shri Vimal Surana suffered some weakness and therefore, he went for routine checkup to Santokba Durlabhji Hospital, Jaipur, where he was admitted. On diagnosis, doctors suggested that on account of liver problem, he is required to be admitted in hospital for being provided medical assistance. All of sudden on 23.02.2017, when the petitioner went to meet him, she noticed that his condition is not improving. She, therefore, requested to shift him to ICU or to another hospital for better medical care. Respondent No. 5 threatened the petitioner to leave hospital. Respondents No. 5 to 7 on the same day came to the residence of the petitioner along with some anti social elements and tried to forcibly dispossess her from Surana Farm House and threatened her not to ever come in the Hospital to meet her husband. The petitioner was not allowed to enter in Durlabhji Hospital when she went to meet Shri Vimal Surana on 24.02.2017 where he was undergoing treatment in ICU. The petitioner apprehends that under the pressure of Respondent No. 5 and 6, doctors are not taking proper care of health of Shri Vimal Surana and his life is in danger. The petitioner in this connection made complaints to S.H.O., Police Station Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur and also to the Director General of Police, but no action is being taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed criminal writ petition no. 72/2017 seeking protection of her life and also life of Shri Vimal Surana, but then chooses to withdraw the same with liberty to file present habeas corpus petition. It is argued that not only the petitioner, who is living in relationship with Shri Vimal Surana, but even a stranger can approach the Court for safety of someone whose life is in danger. It is, therefore, prayed that Respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to shift Shri Vimal Surana, who is hospitalised in ICU in Santokaba Durlabhi Hospital to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur where his health can be taken care of.

(2.) Learned Assistant Government Advocate has opposed the habeas corpus petition.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, in our considered opinion, this habeas corpus petition cannot be maintained. Disputes between the legally wedded wife of Shri Vimal Surana and the petitioner, who claims to be in live in relationship with him, cannot be resolved in the forum of habeas corpus. Filing of present habeas corpus petition is nothing, but abuse of the forum of habeas corpus. We cannot countenance argument of the petitioner only for the reason of apprehension of the petitioner that life of Shri Vimal Surana, who is presently hospitalised in ICU of Santokba Durlabhji Hospital, is in danger and on her askance, we cannot order his shifting to any other hospital particularly when he is said to be in critical condition and admitted in ICU.