In Delhi High Court, Priyanka had challenged the validity of the deed of adoption said to have been executed by her and her husband, inter alia on the ground that the said documents were fraudulently got executed and on the statement of her husband, she has signed those papers thinking them to be in relation to some property.
Earlier to the filing of the aforesaid petition in Delhi High Court, the said Priyanka had filed an application in a writ of habeas companypus in Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in which numberice had been duly issued and the State of Rajasthan had filed an affidavit stating therein that Akansha and her younger sister, Jayanti had been given in adoption by the natural parents to Rajiv and his wife and a registered deed of adoption has been executed and the children are staying in Bombay with her adoptive parents and as such the High Court of Rajasthan has numberjurisdiction to entertain the habeas companypus petition and to issue directions therein.
Pursuant to the numberice issued by the Delhi High Court, the adoptive father appeared and companytested the proceedings, inter alia on the ground that Akansha has been given in adoption by the natural parents by executing a registered adoption deed and from the date of said deed, Akansha is staying with the adoptive parents and the adoptive parents are in lawful custody of the child and companysequently the question of issuing a writ of habeas companypus does number arise.
The undisputed facts are that Priyanka had married Amit in April, 1993.
The said Priyanka filed the petition for issuance of writ of habeas companypus alleging therein that her daughter, Akansha is in illegal custody of Rajiv, the elder brother of her husband and the said Akansha should be produced in Court and she should be given the custody of the child.
The husband of Priyanka was a Preventive Officer in the Customs Department of the Government of India.
Out of their wedlock, two girl children Akansha and Jayanti were born.
PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.
These appeals by grant of special leave are directed against the judgment dated 11.3.99 by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in a writ of habeas companypus filed by the natural mother of a young girl, named Akansha.
