SUSHILABEN DHULABHAI SOLANKI Vs. RAMAKANT DAHYABHAI PARMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule, Mr. Supheia, learned Advocate, waives service of rule for respondent No. 1. Mr. K. P. Raval, learned A.P.P., waives service of rule on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) Real maternal aunt of minor Tarlika (minor for short) has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus against respondent No. 1, father of minor, and produce her before the Court, ascertain her wish as to with whom she is willing to reside, i. e., with maternal aunt or with the petitioner, and on ascertaining her wish, necessary orders be passed.

(3.) It is necessary to refer to certain facts, which, in our opinion, are most relevant and material for the purpose of deciding this petition. Minor is the first child, aged about 16 years, of respondent No. 1. When minor was aged about four years, her mother had died. Minor had another younger sister named Priti. In view of the tender age of both the daughters, it appeared that the respondent No. 1 arrived at an arrangement with the petitioner, a real maternal aunt of the minors, to the effect that minor Tarlika will stay with the petitioner and minor Priti shall stay with respondent No. 1. Minor was brought up by the petitioner and there appeared no grievance about the welfare of the minor by the petitioner. However, it appears that there was some dispute about the property left by the deceased mother of the minors and some proceedings, may be for successccession certificate, was initiated, which also appears to have been terminated by way of compromise. There, it appears that it was agreed that 1/3rd of the amount of the share of minor was to be invested in fixed deposit, to be payable on her attaining majority. On minor attaining majority, that amount is likely to be Rs. 51,000.00 and odd. However, in the year 1991, respondent No. 1 filed Habeas Corpus petition, being Special Criminal Application No. 866 of 1991, in this Court for custody of minor from the present petitioner. There, this Court (Coram : G. N. Ray, C J. and C. K. Thakker, J. passed the following order :