High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRWP/480/2017dismissed

Suman Lata v. State Of Haryana And ORS

2017-04-28Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRWP No.480 of 2017 Decided on: 28.04.2017 Suman Lata ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL Present :

Mr. F.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

REKHA MITTAL, J.

By invoking Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondents No.7 and 9 to produce the minor child Shaksam Garg aged about 4 years and 06 months, illegally and forcibly taken from lawful custody of the petitioner.

Marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.7 was solemnized on 29.03.2011 at Mandi Dabwali, Haryana. There was dispute between the petitioner and her husband along with his family members allegedly on account of demand of dowry and causing harassment. The petitioner lodged FIR No.379 dated 29.10.2013 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') at Police Station Mandi Dabwali against her husband, parents-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law. As per allegations, respondent No.7 tried to forcibly kidnap the minor child from parental house of the petitioner and in this regard, FIR No.49 dated 20.02.2015 under Sections 452, 342, 294 and 506 IPC was

registered against respondent No.7 in Police Station City Mandi Dabwali on the basis of statement of Ashok Kumar, father of the petitioner. Prem Kumar, father-in-law of the petitioner lodged FIR No.78 dated 07.10.2013 under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC against Ajay Kumar, brother of the petitioner and others and they have been convicted and sentenced on 02.07.2016 by the trial Court at Bathinda and the appeal is pending. It is further contended that a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed in the Court but signatures of the petitioner were obtained by taking undue benefit of the fact that the petitioner cannot understand English language and she signed the petition under pressure and coercion exercised by respondents No.7 and 8. On the basis of compromise, respondent No.

8 (father-in-law) made a statement before the Appellate Court in appeal preferred by her brother and others and the accused were acquitted by the Court on 23.01.2017. It is further contended that respondent No.7 succeeded in procuring statement of the petitioner for dissolution of marriage with mutual consent and cleverly took custody of the minor child even though the petitioner was not willing to handover custody of the minor child to respondent No.7. It is further submitted that in the circumstances, a writ of habeas corpus is required to be issued for ensuring production of the child in the Court and handing over custody of the minor to the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the averments set up in the petition but find that the present petition is mis-conceived and liable to be dismissed.

would indicate that matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and her husband was settled by way of compromise and in pursuance thereof, the parties filed a joint petition for divorce. Father of respondent No.7 made a statement before the First Appellate Court in appeal filed by Ajay Kumar and others against their conviction qua FIR No.78 dated 07.10.2013 under Sections 325, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and as a result, the convicts were acquitted of the offence charged against them on 23.01.2017. It further appears that even custody of the minor child was handed over to the husband in pursuance of settlement arrived at between the parties, a detailed reference whereof has been made in the petition seeking divorce by way of mutual consent.

The petitioner has already filed an application before the District Judge (Family Court), Bathinda for directing the husband to hand over custody of the child. In view of the above, no intervention in exercise of writ jurisdiction by issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, is warranted. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to claim custody of the child in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. Nothing stated hereinbefore shall cause prejudice to the petitioner in proceedings pending before the Court at Bathinda or any other proceedings that may be filed in future.

28.04.2017 (REKHA MITTAL) yakub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No