1 wp.1062-2011 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1062 OF 2011 Mrs. Parvinder Kaur ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents. ----- Mr. G.B. Pawar, for the Petitioner. Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the State. Mr. M.A. Choudhari, for Respondent no.3. ---- CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D. SALVI, JJ. AUGUST 03, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, prays for writ of habeas corpus or any order in the like nature so as to seek the custody of the petitioner’s daughters Miss. Chasmita and Miss. Dakshita. 2 wp.1062-2011 3. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent no.3 were married on 30.1.1980 at Aarya Samaj, Santacruz, Mumbai according to Hindu rites and customs. From the said wedlock, the couple begot two daughters i.e. Chasmita and Dakshita. Their marriage was dissolved by way of a decree divorce in the year 1989 (Petition no.230/1988). The petitioner claims that she was not given access to her daughters and as of now she does not know their whereabouts. 4. By the petitioner’s own admissions, elder daughter Miss. Chasmita is of thirty years of age, and the younger daughter Miss. Dakshita is of twenty years of age. Both of them are employed abroad for the last about six years. Respondent no.3 is in contact with the daughters, and as per the learned counsel for the said respondent, the daughters have no desire to keep in touch with their mother. 5. In our opinion, this Petition for the writ of habeas corpus is misconceived, and there is no case made out that respondent no.3 an illegal custody of his daughters. It is also pertinent to note that the daughters are not minor and they are not dependent on their father’s income. 3 wp.1062-2011 6. Hence, the Petition is not maintainable, and the same is dismissed as such. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)