$~1
*	IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
             Date of decision: 12.02.2026
     
+ 	W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025
	ROSHANI DEVI						.....Petitioner
Through:	Mr.Abhishek Kaushik and Mr.Shubham, Advs. along with Petitioner in person.
	Mr.Tejpal in person (son of petitioner)

				versus

	STATE  NCT OF DELHI AND ORS		     .....Respondents
Through:	Mr.Sanjay Lao, SC (Crl.) with Ms.Priyam Agarwal, Mr.Abhinav Kr. Arya and Mr.Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. and Insp. Ravi Prakash Meena, PS J.P. Kalan, Dwarka Distt.


	CORAM:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL) 
1. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking a Writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for production of the son of the petitioner, that is, Mr.Tejpal. 
2. Mr.Tejpal appeared before this Court on 21.11.2025 and had expressed his desire to stay with his mother, that is, the petitioner herein. Keeping in view his desire, this Court, while referring the parties to mediation, observed that he is at liberty to take his own independent decision including staying with his mother.
3. We are informed that since that day he has been staying with the petitioner.
4. Today, he is present in person before this Court. He again states that he would like to continue to stay with his mother. 
5. The learned counsel for the wife and the child of Mr.Tejpal submits that as far as they are concerned, they would be happy if Mr.Tejpal stays with them, however, they have no objection if Mr.Tejpal continues to stay with the petitioner.
6. In view of the above, no further directions are required to be passed except stating that Mr.Tejpal can choose to stay wherever he wishes, as he is a major.
7. At the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that the respondent no.3 does not have the requisite permissions and clearances for acting as a de-addiction centre. He submits that the operations of the respondent no.3 without such permission would be illegal.
8. As none is present for the respondent no.3, we do not go further in this allegation except stating that the respondent no.2, that is, SHO of the concerned area, shall inquire into this allegation and determine if the respondent no.3 is operating without the requisite permissions and approvals and, if that be so, take action against them in accordance with law.
9. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the above plea of the petitioner.
10. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.	


NAVIN CHAWLA, J


RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
FEBRUARY 12, 2026/ns/as

 

W.P.(CRL) 3838/2025					                                      Page 3 of 3