V.K.BALI, J. - (1.) KIRAN Rani, it appears from the facts of this case, has approached this Court through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for recovery of her infant child, Gaurav, aged only one year from the custody of respondents, who are none others than her husband and his relations in compelling circumstances. Petitioner was married with respondent-Krishan Kumar in May, 1992 at Sangrur. Out of this wed-lock a son was born about a year ago. It is pleaded that respondents were not happy with petitioner for not bringing adequate dowry. Consequently, she was made to live with her father at Sangrur alongwith her infant child, Gaurav. Respondents started putting pressure on her as also on her father to get divorce so that respondent-husband was able to solemnise second marriage. This was, obviously, unacceptable to petitioner. It is further pleaded that the respondents hatched a conspiracy and called petitioner alongwith her father to Hoshiarpur in the garb of rehabilitating her. When petitioner alongwith her infant son and father reached at Hoshiarpur at the house of respondents on February 19,1994, the son was forcibly taken from her and she was made to sign certain papers under the threat that if she was not to comply with their directions and sign the documents, her son, Gaurav would be killed. Finding no way out to resist the demand of respondents, who were threatening to kill her son, she succumbed to the pressure and signed certain papers produced before her. Once this object of respondents was achieved, she and her father were pushed out of the house and they were told to leave Hoshiarpur. Respondents further threatened the petitioner that Gaurav would be kept by them as a security for getting divorce from the Court and if she was to resist the decree of divorce, respondents would kill her son. When frantic efforts of petitioner to secure the custody of her only son, both from Hoshiarpur as well as Sangrur police, brought to tangible result, she approached this Court for the relief indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.
(2.) IT is pleaded that the life of infant son Gaurav, is in the danger as the minor is taking breast feed, not being used to take other food. It is also pleaded the petitioner is also feeling complications as the milk is flowing from her breasts and in case Gaurav is not given breast feed of which he is used to, not only that his life would be in danger but petitioner might also be in for some physical trouble on account of continuous flow of milk from her breasts. In pursuance of notice issued to respondents, reply has been filed by them wherein it has been sought to be made out that on July 17, 1993 petitioner told that she had to go to Nanga Mandir/gurudwara situated at Sangrur as before delivery she made prayer that in case she was blessed with a son, she would have 'darshan' of Nanga Mandir alongwith her son and other family members. As such, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith petitioner and her son went to Sangrur. After having 'darshan' of the Mandir, petitioner insisted to stay at Sangrur with her parents for some time. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 came back to Hoshiarpur. The allegations regarding demand of dowry have been denied. It has further been pleaded that when after waiting for a long time, petitioner did not turn up, husband-respondent went to Sangrur to bring her back. Petitioner, however, refused to come back without any excuse. Other efforts made by respondents also did not yield any result. On February 15,1994 respondents were summoned in the Police Station Wing dealing with complaints of ladies regarding matrimonial disputes. They approached one Jagdish Saini, who happens to be the President of Bahujan Samaj Party. On reaching Police Station, respondents were asked to settle their dispute with petitioner. Jagdish Saini made request to petitioner's father on telephone to come to Hoshiarpur to settle the dispute. Ultimately, father of petitioner promised to reach at Hoshiarpur on February 19,1994. On the said date, petitioner alongwith her father, infant son, Hardev Singh and Gurdish Singh, went to Hoshiarpur Police Station. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also reached there. Shri Jagdish Saini also reached there alongwith one Onkar Singh. On reaching Police Station, Smt. Narinder Kaur, ASI, asked the parties to patch up the dispute by mutual consent. For this purpose, meeting was held and Shri Jagdish Saini tried his level best to patch up the matter but petitioner openly declared that she did not want to live with respondent Krishan Kumar and wants divorce. This offer of petitioner was accepted and divorce deed was executed and terms were settled. It was signed by both, husband and wife. Jagdish Saini, Onkar Singh and two persons, who came alongwith the petitioner, Hardev Singh and Gurdish Singh also put their signatures. A copy of divorce deed has been placed on records as Annexure R-l. On the same day, it is also pleaded, that every term was settled. All the articles as mentioned in the divorce deed, were returned to petitioner and she was also paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- in the presence of witnesses. On having received all the articles, Gaurav, son was handed over to respondents and one feeder make Bonne was also handed over to feed him. Petitioner hired a truck No. 407 and carried all the articles to Sangrur.
(3.) IN the divorce deed, Annexure R-l, after narrating the date of marriage and other things, like dispute that had surfaced between the parties, settlement with regard to various matters, like, return of dowry etc- is mentioned from Clauses 6 to 10 which reads thus : "6. That both the parties agreed to return the items of Istridhan and other articles presented to each other at the time of marriage and thereafter. Consequently, thereupon, it was also decided that party No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash to party No. 2 as compensation of expenses incurred on the marriage party and miscellaneous expenses. . 7. That out of their wed-lock, a son named Mr. Gaurav was born on 20. 2. 1993 and it was decided that the son will be given to Party No. 1. 8. That the articles gifted by the Party No. 2 to Party No. 1 containing clothes, beddings, furniture, steel box (Peti), utensils and golden ornaments etc. will be returned by party No. 1 to party No. 2 simultaneously on the above transaction. 9. That both the parties will have no right to seek any legal Court which and with this undertaking. 10. That on completion of the above terms and conditions, both the parties are at liberty to marry any where they like and there will be no objection to each other. ";