R KARPAGAM Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE F 4

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this court in the Habeas Corpus jurisdiction for a direction to the respondents to produce her minor child namely, R.Vasanthakumar, aged about three years. In the affidavit itself, there is an averment that the petitioner has given birth to seven children, out of her wedlock with her first husband; her first husband deserted her; thereafter she joined the fold of Sri. Ranjith; they as such could not maintain the seven children born to the petitioner through her first husband; she had given birth to a male child through Ranjith and in the above stated circumstances"- poverty being the predominant factor, her child through her second husband was handed over to the third respondent for being maintained, till such time the petitioner is in a position to take back the child. THE affidavit proceeds to state that as on date, since the petitioner is in a position to take the child into her fold, she want to take back. THE third respondent is represented by a counsel. We examined the third respondent, who is present with the child. Her case is that when the child in issue was hardly ten days old, the petitioner was about to drown him in a lake; she was present at that site and since she did not have a male child at all, she wanted to give the child to be given in adoption to her, so that she would maintain the child for the rest of her life. According to her, the petitioner accepted that offer; took some money and then legally handed over the child to her. THE third respondent would state that she named the child as Srinivasan. THE petitioner and the third respondent are admittedly illiterate and living below poverty line.

(2.) THERE is no dispute that on one of the earlier hearings (one of us namely, M.Thanikachalam, J was constituting the quorum of the Bench) the petitioner was permitted to approach the child in open court to take custody and the child raised a hue and cry on he going to the fold of the petitioner. In other words, the child resisted the attempt made by the petitioner to take him into her custody. Mr.T. Karunakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would affirm that the child cried when he came into the hands of the petitioner.