KIRAN PUJAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of habeas corpus directing respondent No.4 to produce his minor child and handover the custody of the said minor to the petitioner.

(2.) The petition is based on the facts that the petitioner is the natural father and guardian of the minor child. According to the petitioner, he and respondent No.4 are husband and wife and both medical practitioners and they got married as per Hindu rites and rituals on 01.04.2002. On 02.12.2006, a daughter namely Ananya Pujar was born at Gandhinagar and, thereafter, the family moved to Australia in February 2007.

(3.) This petition has been resisted by respondent No.4 denying all the facts of the petition and contested the petition and stated that she is a natural guardian and biological mother of the child Anant and has also stated that the custody of the minor child is with his own mother does not amount to illegal custody or illegal confinement and, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that to allow the minor child with the mother is always desirable in the larger welfare of the child himself. She has stated that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there is a high risk of the child being abused by the father and there is high risk of domestic violence upon the child more particularly in Australia. It is stated that the child is not in any confinement, he is moving freely under the care of his mother and he is studying in a well known school namely Aditya Birla Public School, Nagda, Madhya Pradesh. She has stated that when she tried to transfer the money from her joint account with the petitioner, she could not do so as the petitioner was having full control over the bank account and when she talked with the petitioner, he started verbally abusing her. The main contention of respondent No.4 is that the petition is not maintainable and the custody of the minor child can not be treated as illegal custody. The other respondents have also filed affidavit-in-reply by denying the contentions of the petition.