- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and perused the record. This writ of habeas corpus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Smt. Saroj Devi petitioner No. 1 with the averments that her marriage was solemnized with respondent No. 4 Rajesh Singh on 9.2.2010 and from this wedlock two issues were born. Prithwi Singh petitioner No. 2 is aged about 2 years and Priya Singh petitioner No. 3 is aged about 5 month. Respondent No. 4 and his mother respondent No. 5 Smt. Aruna Devi adopted torturing and practicing cruelty upon petitioner No. 1 Smt. Saroj Devi in connection with demand of dowry. The relation between the parties inter se became strained. The climax is that on fine morning respondent Nos. 4 and 5 forcibly ousted the petitioner No. 1 from their house after snatching aforesaid two minor children from her lap. She was compelled to leave the house of her in laws. She lodged an F.I.R. under section 498-A, I.P.C. and Dowry Prohibition Act against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 which is' pending trial. As a matter of counter blast respondent No. 4, the husband of petitioner No. 1 filed a criminal complaint case against petitioner No. 1 and her entire maternal family under sections 452, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34, I.P.C. wherein process under section 204, Cr. P.C. was issued on 15.9.2012. The petitioner visited several time to the house of respondent No. 4 to see her minor children but she was not allowed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to meet her children. She ran from pillar to post seeking police intervention and protection but all in vain. Contrary to it respondent No. 4 threatened her for dire consequence in case she claims the children.
(2.) Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 being mother and son have filed no counter-affidavit rather in pursuance of the order of this Court they produced both the children in the Court and on query by the Court they expressed no objection if the children are given to their mother petitioner No. 1. It is known to all concern that immediate welfare of the infants is of prime consideration but being completely innocent and of tender age there was no point in putting any question to them. Both of them had a completely innocent look. None can deny the fact that it is misfortune for the children who have been deprived by the love, affection, care and close contact of their mother, petitioner No. 1. Considering their age no one other than the mother petitioner No. 1 can bestow extreme affection and warmth love which spontaneously flow from the mother who gave birth to the children. The welfare of these two infants children lies there being handed over to their mother in preference to their father respondent No. 4 or grand mother respondent No. 5 who cannot be expected to bestow at present or in the years to come that affection and care which the two infant children are entitled to get from their mother. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is essential and beneficial even for the health of the mother to have her children of these age and feed them her natural milk from her breast which is beneficial to the health of both the corpus as well.
(3.) It is also in the interest of two infants corpus that their father Rajesh Singh respondent No. 4 and their grand mother respondent No. 5 Smt. Aruna Devi may have access to see their infants to bestow their love and affection and to know their welfare at intervals.;