1 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1571 OF 2010 Shafeeq A.Rahim .. Petitioner Versus 1. Tabassum Shafeeq 2. Commissioner of Police Thane Region 3. Senior Inspector of Police Nizampura Police Station, Bhiwandi Dist. Thane 4. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents Mr. Hakim Salim A.R.D. for the ;petitioner Mrs. Anita Bhaktwani for Respondent No.1 Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM : SHRI S. J. KATHAWALLA & SHRI R. G. KETKAR , J.J. DATE : 2nd June, 2010. P.C.: 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner father praying for directions against the Commissioner of Police, Thane Region(Respondent No.1)and Senior Inspector of Police, Nizampura Police Station, Bhiwandi Dist. Thane (Respondent No.3) to trace and search the child- Reeba and 2 produce her before the Court to ensure her wellbeing. The petitioner has also prayed for the custody of the child. 2. According to the petitioner on 11th June, 2009 the petitioner filed a Petition before the Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai seeking an order of injunction against the respondent no.1 from taking the child away from the matrimonial home at Bandra, Mumbai. However, according to the petitioner, respondent No.1 took away the child from the matrimonial home on 21st July, 2009 and started residing at Bhiwandi with her parents. In February, 2010, the petitioner filed an application before the Family Court , Mumbai alleging that the respondent No.1 is likely to leave the country alongwith the child. According to the petitioner in March, 2010 when the bailiff visited the house of respondent No.1, he found that the child was burnt from waist and he reported the incident to the petitioner. Thereafter on 11th March, 2010 the petitioner lodged a complaint with Nizampura Police Station, Bhiwandi alleging that his minor daughter is being tortured by the respondent No.1. However, the police failed to take any action thereon. 3. On 26th May, 2010, the matter was before the Family Court, Mumbai when the Family Court directed the respondent no.1 to produce the child before the Court on 22nd June, 2010. The present application was filed before this Court on 28th May, 2010. On 31st May, 2010, this 3 Court directed respondent No.1 to remain present alongwith the Child today at 10.30 a.m. in Chambers. The mother as well as the child are today present before us. The child is cheerful and in good health except the burn marks which are visible below the waist. We have spoken at length to both the parties as well as their Advocates. The respondent No. 1 wife is willing to forgive and forget what has happened in the past, to withdraw the complaint filed by her and to return to the matrimonial home alongwith the child. The petitioner is of the view that reconciliation is not possible. The respondent No.1 mother has admitted that in March, 2010 the child had got burnt below the waist due to accidental fall of hot water. The medical reports are produced before the Court in support of the fact that adequate medical care of the child has been taken. 4. Since March, 2010 the petitioner is admittedly aware that the child had suffered burn injuries. Except for writing one letter to the Police on 11th March, 2010, the petitioner, who is alleging that the child was tortured by the Respondent No.1 mother, has not taken any steps to obtain necessary orders pertaining to the minor. If the petitioner would have been serious qua his allegation that the respondent no.1 was mercilessly beating the child and is responsible for the burn injuries suffered by the child, the petitioner would certainly have filed necessary proceedings before the Family Court or any other Competent Court recording such allegations and seeking appropriate reliefs. However, the 4 petitioner has not taken any steps until 28th May, 2010 when he filed the present petition. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that oral submissions were made before the Family Court as regards the torture of the minor at the hands of the respondent No.1. The Advocate is well aware that by his first application before the Family court the petitioner has sought an order of injunction against the respondent no.1 from leaving her matrimonial home with the child and the said Application has become infructuous since the respondent No.1 has already left the matrimonial home. The second application pertains to the allegation by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is likely to leave the country along with the child. Therefore the oral submission on the part of the petitioner before the Family Court pertaining to the alleged torture of the child by the Respondent No.1 in the above two applications without seeking any appropriate reliefs in that regard would be of no assistance to the petitioner. 5. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that no orders are required to be passed in the above Writ Petition qua the custody of the child. 6. Respondent No.1 undertakes to produce the child before the Family Court on 22nd June, 2010 as directed by the Family Court. The said undertaking is accepted. 5 7. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings before the Family Court or before any Trial court seeking appropriate reliefs qua the custody/access of the minor. In the event of the petitioner filing such proceedings, the same shall be disposed of by the Family Court/Trial Court on merits and without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, within a period of four weeks from the date, such proceedings are filed and served on the respondent no.1. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ( R. G. KETKAR, J) (S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.)