MASTER ARYAN Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Master Aryan and Master Chetan are two young boys, who have lost their father to a crime. Their deceased father, the late Pramod Kumar, was murdered. The boys' misfortune was worsened, as their mother, Sonia, was arrested as a co-accused in the crime, along with Pramod, son of Rajbira and Mahbood, son of Yusuf Ansari. She was arrested and sent to jail, on 05.09.2019. She was admitted to bail by this Court and released from prison, on 13.02.2020. During the period of her incarceration, the two boys were taken away by respondent nos. 4 to 11, who are their late father's family members. Once Sonia emerged from jail, she demanded her children's custody, which respondent nos. 4 to 11 denied. Sonia, who is the mother and the natural guardian of Master Aryan and Master Chetan, has instituted this petition for a writ of habeas corpus, asking this Court to order respondent nos. 4 to 11 to produce her sons and to set them at liberty, in the manner that they be entrusted to her custody.

(2.) This petition was admitted to hearing on 28.08.2020, and a rule nisi was issued to respondent nos. 4 to 11, ordering the Superintendent of Police to cause the two boys, who were in custody of respondent nos. 4 to 11, to be produced before this Court on 02.09.2020. On the date of return, Aryan and Chetan were produced before the Court. Respondent nos. 5 and 9 alone put in appearance through Mr. Pankaj Bharti, Advocate. The Court interacted with the elder of the two children, Chetan, in order to ascertain his wishes about his choice of the person he would like to be with. The Court not only ascertained his wishes, but also recorded impressions about the expression of choice by Chetan, in the order dated 02.09.2020. It would be alluded to in some detail later in this judgment.

(3.) The matter was adjourned for further hearing to 02.09.2020 and in the meantime, Mr. Pankaj Bharti was granted time to file a counter affidavit. The matter came up again on 24.09.2020, when a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, acting for himself and for respondent no. 9. The case was adjourned for further hearing to 08.10.2020. On 08.10.2020, learned counsel appearing for the parties concluded their submissions and judgment was reserved.