SUMEDHA NAGPAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Preliminary objection as regards territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus has been raised by learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) On 24.8.1999 the petitioner approached this Court seeking Writ of Habeas Corpus for production and restoration other 20 months old child. It was alleged that her marriage with respondent No. 2 took place on 15.10.1996 at Delhi. A male child was bom on 15.11.1997 in Mool Chand Hospital at New Delhi. Parties had been residing at Delhi. Relations between the petitioner and the respondent became strained because of alleged cruel behaviour of respondent No. 2 towards petitioner. On 7.4.1999 petitioner was severely thrashed by respondent No. 2 and turned out of the house. Petitioner had to take shelter at her parents' house at Delhi. On 20.5.1999 she had to lodge a complaint at Police Station Sarai Rohilla of the repeated threats of abduction of her child by respondent No. 2. On 6.6,1999 respondent No. 2 along with his parents came and offered unqualified apology for their past conduct. Respondent No. 2 agreed to behave decently in future and on such assurance, there was reconciliation, The petitioner resumed company of respondent No. 2 at her matrimonial home located at B-16, Gujrawala Town, Phase-1, Delhi. It is further alleged that as a part of well thoughtout calculated plan, respondent No. 2 on 28.6.1999 shifted his residence from Delhi to Bahadurgarh in Haryana. The petitioner along with the child also accompanied respondent No. 2 to Bahadurgarh where admittedly the petitioner along with the child continued to reside along with respondent No. 2.

(3.) It is alleged that on 1.8.1999 when the petitioner was busy attending to the guests at her matrimonial house at Bahadurgarh, she was deprived of custody of the child by respondent No. 2. Thereafter the petitioner was put in a car and was taken to the residence of respondents Nos.5 and 6 in Model Town, Delhi where she was kept confined till 8.8.1999. On finding an opportunity, she escaped from the wrongful confinement and on 10.8.1999, a complaint was sent by her to Police Commissioner. On 18.8.1999 another complaint was lodged at Police Station, Sarai Rohilla. On these allegations, the petitioner alleged that she was deprived of custody of her infant child, who was liable to be restored to her by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.