OM PRAKASH -VII,J. - (1.) THIS habeas corpus writ petition has been filed by Krishna Chandra, the grandfather of the corpus (Kunal) on the ground that corpus is only aged about 2 years and is in illegal custody of the respondents no.4 to 6 and they are also extending torture to the corpus. Petitioner Krishna Chandra is the natural guardian of the corpus while the respondents no.4 to 6 are not the natural guardian, therefore, prayer has been made to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus directing / commanding the respondents no.2 and 3 to produce the corpus from the illegal custody of the respondents no.4 to 6. Photo stat copies of parivar register and insurance policies in the name of corpus have been annexed as annexures no.1 and 2. Copies of the applications moved before the authorities concerned have also been filed as annexure no.3.
(2.) RESPONDENTS no.4 to 6 have filed counter and supplementary counter affidavits alleging therein that respondent no.4 is the maternal grandmother of the corpus. Smt. Beena Verma, mother of the corpus, got married with the son of petitioner Krishna Chandra namely Rajesh Kumar, who died on 16.1.2011 leaving behind a daughter namely Baby Sakshi Patel and his wife Smt. Beena Verma. After the death of Rajesh Kumar, a posthumous child Kunal (corpus) was also born. Smt. Beena Verma, who was the mother of the corpus, was residing at the residence of respondent no.4. She was employed initially at Banda, but later on she was transferred to Kanpur. On one fateful day i.e. 26.5.2013, Smt. Beena Verma met with a motor accident and died. Till then, the corpus is living with the respondents no.4 to 6. Respondent no.6, who is the maternal aunt (mausi) of the corpus is taking care of the ward and providing proper nourishment to the ward, who was only aged about 2 years at that time. Respondent no.5, who is the husband of respondent no.6, is a Government employee and is earning Rs.50,000/ - per month and has a capacity to look after and take care of the corpus.
(3.) IT is also mentioned in the counter objection that habeas corpus writ petition has been filed only with malafide intention just to harass the respondents no.4 to 6. It is also the ground of the respondents that matter under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the custody of the child are pending before the competent Court filed by the parties. Therefore, this habeas corpus writ petition is not maintainable in the present forum. Reference was given of the certified copy of the Petition No.149/70 of 2013 (Smt. Reeta Verma Vs. Arun Kumar Verma) and also the Misc. Case No.286/70 of 2013 (Krishna Chandra Vs. Arun Kumar and others). Petitioner has also filed rejoinder and supplementary rejoinder affidavits rebutting the facts mentioned in the counter objection.;