PRIYANKA BHATIA Vs. GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal writ petition of Habeas Corpus has been fied by one Ms. Priyanka Bhatia for the custody of her two minor daughters, namely, Akansha and Jayanti aged three and a half and two and a half years respectively from the illegal custody of respondents 3 and 4.

(2.) The undisputed facts are as follows. The petitioner Priyanka Bhatia was married to respondent No. 2 on April 13, 1993. At that time the petitioner was barely eighteen years of age and had just completed her 10th class and was prosecuting further studies. Out of the marriage, there are two female issues, namely, Akansha and Jayanti. Akansha was born on May 27,1995 and Jayanti was born on July 1, 1996. Respondent No. 2 is Preventive Officer in the Customs Department of Government of India. The petitioner and her husband, respondent No. 2, are not staying together since October 23, 1998. On October 25, 1998, the petitioner lodged an FIR, being No. 100/98, under Section 498A/406 of the Indian Penal Code at Women's Police Station, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur. Respondents No. 2 and 3 and their mother were arrested at Bombay and were brought to Jaipur but later on were released on bail. A writ of habeas corpus, being No. 276/99, was filed by the petitioner on January 25, 1999 in the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur in which notice was issued only to the State of Rajasthan. Reply was filed by the State of Rajasthan taking preliminary pleas that the High Court of Rajasthan had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition as the minor children (the said two daughters of the petitioners) had been given in adoption by the petitioner and her husband by registered adoption deeds to respondents 3 and 4 respectively and their custody was also given to them at Bombay and that the petitioner ought to have filed a writ of habeas corpus in the Bombay High Court and not in the Rajasthan High Court.

(3.) The facts contended by the petitioner are that when the petitioner was married to respondent No. 2, she was a girl of an impressionable age have little education; that she was constantly harassed by her in-laws for having brough insufficient dowry; that in February, 1995, the petitioner's husband took a flat on rent at Meera Road, Bombay; that around January 1996, a flat was purchased at Meera Road, Bombay in the name of the parents of respondent No. 2 where respondent No. 3 (elder brother of respondent No. 2) alongwith his family started residing while the petitioner alongwith respondent No. 2 continued to live in a rented apartment in the same area; that in February, 1998, petitioner's daughter Akansha was admitted to Neranjan Lal Dalmia School, Meera Road; that around May, 1998, respondent No.2 was allotted a Government accommodation at Powai which is about twenty five kilometers from the said Meera Road School; that soon after shifting to the Government accommodation at Powai, respondent No. 2 told the petitioner that since it was not easy to change the School of Akansha, she would be permitted to continue her education for one year at the same School and for that purpose it would be advisable to give the guardianship of Akansha to respondent No. 3, who was living at Meera Road as it would be convenient for him to take care of Akansha till her shifting to some School at Powai; that respondent No. 2 told the petitioner that for the aforesaid purpose certain documents were to be signed and the petitioner without suspecting any foul play in the matter and having complete faith and trust in her husband signed some documents at Mumbai without questioning the motives; that thereafter in Delhi as well respondent No. 2 got some papers signed in the sub-Registrar office saying that they related to some property of respondent No. 4 (Mausi of respondent No. 2); that on September 24, 1998, respondent No. 2 asked the petitioner to accompany him to Bandra Court for signing some papers in relation to some property and made her to sign the last page of the documents bearing verification; that when the petitioner turned over the page and was asked to sign the same she realized that the petition was a petition for divorce and, therefore, she refused to sign the same and came out of the Court at which respondent No. 2 shouted at her and created a scene in the petition the aforesaid date is given as 24.11.1998 whereas in the list of dates, the date is given as 24.11.1998. To us the ate of 24.11.1998 appears to be. a typing mistake because from the facts and circumstances as alleged in the petition that date could only be 24.9.1998 and not 24.11.1998 (the reason being that since 23.10.1998 admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have not been living together and have no contact with each other); that when the petitioner refused to sign the divorce petition, the mother-in-law of the petitioner, who was also at Mumbai at that lime took the petitioner to Delhi leaving behind the two minor daughters and kept her practically in confinement of the respondent No. 4; that the petitioner was harassed and threatened by her mother-in-law and was forced to sign a letter (as dictated by the son of respondent No. 4) addressed to SHO, Lajpat Nagar, Police Station, New Delhi which reads as follows :-