RAJBINDER KAUR DHILLON Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to secure the custody of Karamveer Kaur (respondent No. 6).

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case, inter alia, are that petitioner Rajbinder Singh Dhillon, is a legally wedded wife of Jagbir Singh Dhillon. Respondent No. 4 Sarjeet Singh Dhillon is real brother of Jagbir Singh Dhillon while respondent No. 5 Kulvinder Kaur is wife of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 6 is a minor daughter, aged about 4 -year, of respondents No. 4 and 5, who was given in the custody of petitioner as well as her husband Jagbir Singh Dhillon along with authorization letter dated 02.03.2009, authorizing adoption by petitioner and her husband Jagbir Singh Dhillon.

(3.) IT is further alleged that marriage of petitioner with Jagbir Singh Dhillon suffered irreparable breakdown consequently, petitioner moved out of her matrimonial home with respondent No. 6 in November, 2010. Jagbir Singh Dhillon moved an application before the Court for sole residence and contract order regarding minor respondent No. 6. Petitioner applied for adoption order pertaining to minor respondent No. 6, mean -while, it is alleged that respondent No. 6 minor was abducted and was brought back to India by Jagbir Singh Dhillon in collusion with respondent No. 4 and 5 biological parents of respondent No. 6. It is further alleged that due to the fact that minor respondent No. 6 was brought back to India by Jagbir Singh Dhillon, former husband of petitioner, in collusion with respondent Nos. 4 and 5, therefore, adoption proceedings could not be finalized. It is further alleged that minor respondent No. 6 was brought back to India by kidnapping her from the lawful custody of petitioner in gross violation of orders passed by UK Court authorizing the residence order of respondent No. 6 with the petitioner. Petitioner is seeking custody of respondent No. 6 on the ground that she was kidnapped and brought to India in violation of UK's Court order authorizing residence of respondent No. 6 with the petitioner.