VINAYAK GOYAL Vs. PREM PRAKASH GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Vinayak Goyal through his mother Smt. Manju Goyal, wife of Sudhakar Goyal. Smt. Manju Goyal was married in 1971 to Sudhakar Goyal, son of respondents Nos. 1 and 7. Prem Prakash Goyal and Smt. Sheela Rani Goyal. One son, the petitioner Vinayak Goyal, and two daughters were born to them. Sudhakar Goyal died in February 1979. At the time of his death, Sudhakar Goyal was posted at Uttar Kashi as Executive Engineer. After his death, Smt. Manju Goyal along with the petitioner and her two daughters returned to respondents 1 and 2, her in-laws, at Ghaziabad. Since then, she had been living along with her children with them.

(2.) THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the petitioner Vinayak Goyal and to direct them to hand over his custody to Smt. Manju Goyal was filed on 28-4-1981, on the allegations that Smt. Manju Goyal, the mother of the petitioner, had to leave the respondents' house on account of the mental torture meted out to her by Respondents 1 and 2. THE allegation made further was that the petitioner was forcibly held back and not allowed to accompany his mother on 20-4-1981. THE petitioner claimed that being the mother, she was the natural guardian of her son Vinayak Goyal, and that she was entitled to his custody. Holding back of the petitioner from his mother Smt. Manju Goyal amounted to illegal detention and, as such, she was entitled to a direction being issued to the respondents to hand over the petitioner to her.

(3.) SECTION 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act lays down the list of persons who can be the natural guardian of a Hindu minor. Clause (a) of SECTION 6 provides that in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl- father, and after him, the mother. In the instant case, the father is, admittedly, dead. That being so, the mother Smt. Manju Goyal is the natural guardian of the petitioner. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2, who are the grand father and mother of the petitioner, have his custody. They are, however, not the guardian, and, as such, are not entitled to retain him against the wishes of his mother Smt. Manju Goyal,