HAYARUNISA ABDUL HAKKIM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Navaneeth N. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Reginald Valsalan, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(2.) This Habeas Corpus petition has been filed by the mother, the natural guardian of the minor child, inter alia on the ground that despite a decree passed by the Family Court granting permanent custody to her, the father of the child illegally removed the child from her custody while the child was in school and without informing her. It is prayed that the child be returned to the mother in terms of the decree of the Family Court. Although it was open to the mother to seek execution of the decree of the Family Court, she has filed the present petition in the nature of Habeas Corpus seeking custody of the child.

(3.) We have independently interacted with the minor, the father and mother of the minor and also the minor in the presence of his father and mother separately. The minor, in his interaction with us, clearly expressed his desire to be with the mother, although he initially stated that he would like to go with the father, which, in our view, does not appear to have been a statement made in free will. Moreover, there can be no doubt that the father had taken custody of the child in violation of the decree passed by the Family Court.