Crl.W.P.No.1630 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Writ Petition No.1630 of 2011 Date of Decision: 12 - 10 - 2011 Kanil Kumar etc. .....Petitioners v. Chandigarh Administration and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Ms.Tanu Bedi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction for the protection and enforcement of fundamental right of the petitioners, which according to counsel for the petitioners is a right to visit the mother and according to counsel this right flows to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This is one of those cases where the children, who in order to have their slice of the cake (property) are purportedly fighting over the right to visit the mother, who is stated to be 82 years old. It is not disputed that the mother had executed a will and subsequently she executed another will. Crl.W.P.No.1630 of 2011 [2] This according to the counsel is subject matter of criminal and civil litigation. This case was listed before a Co-ordinate Bench, which vide order dated 18.8.2011 treated it as a habeas corpus petition. Another Co- ordinate Bench on 24.8.2011 directed respondents No.2 and 3, son and daughter-in-law respectively to produce Smt.Om Kumari, the alleged detenue in Court. Smt.Om Kumari who is stated to be 82 years old is present in Court in a wheel chair. On a question asked by the Court in the presence of counsel for the parties to Smt.Om Kumari that as to where she intends to reside, she stated that she will continue to live with her daughter-in-law Suman. She has further stated that petitioners as and when desire can come and meet her. In view of the statement made by Smt.Om Kumari, this Court is of the view that the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. However, Ms.Tanu Bedi, counsel for the petitioners has stated that this Court should issue orders vesting visiting right in the petitioners and device a schedule accordingly. According to counsel there is no other legal provision, by invoking which, petitioners, who are sons of Smt.Om Kumari, can have the legal sanction to visit their mother, except by way of this writ petition. Whether this Court in a delicate family relationship can issue such direction is one of the issues which this Court has to answer? Whether the petitioners being sons aged 62 years, 55 years and 61 years under the garb of orders of this Court should visit their mother, who is staying with another son is another issue to be decided especially when parties are embroiled in fierce litigation. Crl.W.P.No.1630 of 2011 [3] This Court is of the view that the old lady Smt.Om Kumari, aged about 82 years, who is not having good health and has come to the Court in a wheel chair is entitled to lead her life peacefully, whereas the sons, who are fighting over the property and are litigating in every possible forum on the pretext visit each time, are bound to cause trouble and friction for the old lady, therefore, possibility that peace of mind of old lady will be disturbed cannot be ruled out. In such a delicate family relationship this Court shall refrain to exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly when this Court is of the view that right of liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of alleged detenue old lady Smt.Om Kumari is in no way affected as she is not unlawfully detained and is residing with her one son and daughter-in-law according to her own free will. Petitioners, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum or seek community help for resolution of the dispute which essentially is a family affair. Nothing said herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of claim raised by the parties regarding inter se property dispute. With the aforesaid observations, the present petition is disposed of, as directions prayed for cannot be issued, while exercising writ jurisdiction. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) October 12, 2011. JUDGE RC