Lokesh Sisodia v. The State NCT Of Delhi & ORS

$~10.

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 466/2019 LOKESH SISODIA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Arora, Advocate with petitioner in person versus THE STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Mehra, St. Counsel (Crl.) with Mr. Rangadhara Mahapatra, father of Ms. Manisha

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI

O R D E R

% 13.02.2019 1.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus against the respondents No.6 and 7 (parents of his wife, Ms. Manisha) alleging that they are responsible for his wife going missing from their matrimonial home at Rohini on 12.01.2019, along with their 2 years old daughter.

2.

A Status Report is handed over by Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) wherein it is stated that on 12.01.2019, the petitioner's wife, Ms. Manisha had submitted a letter in her own hand writing at P.S. KN Katju Marg stating inter alia that she did not wish to live with her husband as she was facing problems with him. She also clarified that she is not facing any problems from her in-laws. She further stated that she is slipping into depression and is unable to live her life freely. She had decided to leave with her daughter to live with her parents, based in Odisha. A copy of the said letter is enclosed with the Status Report.

W.P.(CRL) 466/2019

3.

Respondent No.7, father of Manisha, r/o. Bhubaneswar, Odisha is present in the Court and confirms that his daughter and her child have returned to her parental home and she does not wish to go back to her matrimonial home. He further states that the petitioner had called him up on his mobile phone to ask about the whereabouts of Manisha and he had told him that she is living with them.

4.

Mr. Mehra, Standing Counsel (Crl.) states that the I.O. has telephonically spoken to Ms. Manisha, who has reiterated all that she had stated in the letter dated 12.01.2019, referred to above. 5.

In view of the fact that the petitioner is aware of the whereabouts of his wife, no orders are required to be passed on this petition, which is disposed of.

HIMA KOHLI, J MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J FEBRUARY 13, 2019 na/NA W.P.(CRL) 466/2019