JUDGEMENT
AKSHAY H.MEHTA -
(1.) Rule. Miss Harsha Devani, Ld. APP waives
service of rule on behalf of respondents nos. 1 and 3
and Mr. SI Nanavati, learned senior advocate waives
service of rule on behalf of respondent no. 2.
(2.) This petition is filed under the
provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying this Court for issuance writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner is the mother of a child named Kiran (in the
affidavit-in-reply stated as 'Karan'), aged about 9
months. It is her say that she has married to respondent
no. 2 on 28th December, 2002 and during their wedlock
child Kiran was born on 12th November, 2003. It is
averred by the petitioner that after the child was born
within short time she was driven out of the house by
respondent no. 2 and his family members. Thereafter she
made efforts to get the custody of the child but in vain.
After all efforts having failed, now she has been
constrained to approach this Court as a last resort. It
is further averred in the petition that since the child
is aged about 9 months, she is natural guardian of the
child. She has for that purpose placed reliance on the
provisions of section 6 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"]. In the end she has prayed that appropriate writ
of habeas corpus be issued against respondent no. 2 to
produce the minor child Kiran before this Court and
direct him to hand-over the custody of the child to her.
(3.) The petition has been resisted by the
otherside by filing affidavit-in-reply wherein mainly it
is stated that the present petition is not maintainable
since alternative efficacious remedy is available to the
petitioner. It is further averred that there is no need
to issue writ of habeas corpus since the child is not in
illegal custody of the father and the welfare of the
child would be maintained in the best possible manner, if
the child remained with respondent no. 2 and his family.
It is also averred that it is the petitioner who has left
the family with her father and brother and she is not
prepared to come back to family of respondent no. 2. It
is, therefore, prayed that the petition be dismissed.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.