Dhanlaxmi Urf Sunita Mathuria vs The State Of Rajasthan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2025 INSC 196 EXTRA­ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 15500 OF 2024

SMT. DHANLAXMI URF SUNITA MATHURIA & ANR.

……PETITIONERS

Versus

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ……RESPONDENTS

ORDER

1. The petitioners had filed a Habeas Corpus petition before the

High Court of Rajasthan, alleging that their mother was in

unauthorized detention of the private respondents and the

police could not trace their mother despite missing reports filed

by the petitioners. However, during the pendency of the writ

petition, the petitioners’ mother returned home and

consequently, the High Court vide order dated 04.07.2024

dismissed the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition as having become

infructuous.

2. As per the petitioners, during the course of hearing of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.02.12 16:27:45 IST Habeas Corpus petition, the police officials made a statement, Reason:

asserting that a divorce decree has been passed with respect to

1 the marriage between Petitioner no. 1 and her husband; and

that Petitioner no. 1’s husband got remarried. Further,

petitioner no.1 claims that she requested the High Court, to

direct the concerned police officials to furnish a clarification

explaining the veracity of such statements. This request was

accepted by the High Court, but on the next date of hearing,

the Habeas Corpus petition itself was dismissed as being

infructuous, since the Petitioners’ mother had returned home.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners sought review of the order dated

04.07.2024 by which the Habeas Corpus petition was disposed

of. This review petition was dismissed on 23.07.2024 as no

case was made out to recall the previous order. The Petitioners

did not stop here. In August 2024, they filed a miscellaneous

application before the High Court praying that the previous

orders dated 04.07.2024 and 23.07.2024, should be looked

into and an explanation must be sought from the police

authorities, clarifying the basis on which they made

statements regarding the divorce of petitioner no. 1. This

miscellaneous application has been dismissed vide the

impugned order. Now, before us, the petitioner no.1 is alleging

that she was humiliated in open court during the hearing of

the Habeas Corpus petition and the High Court ought to have 2 sought an explanation from the concerned police officials as

stated above.

4. We have heard the petitioners, who appeared in­person before

this Court. The primary grievance of petitioner no.1 is that she

has been humiliated and defamed in open court due to the

statements made by the concerned police officials regarding

her matrimonial life. According to petitioner no. 1, initially the

High Court passed an order dated 30.05.2024 in the Habeas

Corpus petition, directing the police authorities to submit in

writing the basis on which the concerned remarks were made.

Here, we would like to reproduce the High Court’s order dated

30.05.2024, which is as follows:

“Learned GA­cum­AAG has produced the status report. We have perused the status report.

Learned GA­cum­AAG seeks four weeks’ time to produce the corpus.

Time prayed for is allowed.

List the matter on 04.07.2024”

This order of the High Court does not even remotely support

the contentions of the petitioners. From a bare perusal of the

record and especially the order dated 30.05.2024, it is but

apparent that no such directions to the police authorities, as

alleged by the petitioners, were given by the High Court.

5. The grievance of petitioner no.1, that she has been defamed by

the statements of the police officials and was humiliated in

3 open court, is totally misconceived. Even if such statements

were made before the High Court, we are unable to understand

how it has caused any humiliation to petitioner no.1.

6. During court proceedings, many statements are made and

questions are posed which may make a person uncomfortable,

but all such statements or questions cannot be misconstrued

as humiliating a person. After all, it is the duty of the Court to

reach the truth of the matter and such exercise may demand

putting forward certain questions and suggestions which may

be uncomfortable to some.

7. In the present case, the petitioners had simply approached the

High Court, alleging that their mother had been unlawfully

detained; and a quietus was given to the case when their

mother returned home and thus, habeas corpus petition was

disposed of. Thereafter, nothing was left in the matter and the

subsequent review petition, miscellaneous application as well

as the present petition filed by petitioners are totally

misconceived. Before this Court, the petitioners argued in­

person and made unusual and unwarranted prayers, which

cannot be granted by this Court and considering the same, the

present petition is hereby dismissed.

4

8. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

…..………………………………..J. [SUDHANSHU DHULIA]

..……………………….………….J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH]

February 12, 2025 New Delhi

5