NEETU MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri Jai Narayan appeared for the private Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and filed a counter-affidavit on their behalf which is taken on record.

(2.) In the present habeas corpus petition, the question of legality of the custody of Petitioner No. 2 Nikki Maurya, an infant aged about one year and two months is involved. The Petitioner No. 1 Neetu Maurya is the mother and the Respondent No. 4 is the father of the child. The child is presently in the custody of the father. The case of the Petitioner is that the child has been kept by the Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in their custody without any lawful authority. She, being the mother of the child, is entitled to the custody of the child, therefore, the custody of the child may be handed over to the Petitioner No. 1 Neetu Maurya.

(3.) This Court vide order dated 11.2.2001 required the Respondent No. 4 to appear in person alongwith corpus but today no doubt he is present in person but did not produce the child. Mr. Jai Narayan submitted that the child is ill, therefore, it was not desirable to produce the child today. He, however, showed his willingness to produce the child as and when required.