MASTER MANTOO Vs. AJEET KUMAR SINHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition in the nature of habeas corpus Under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE facts of the case may first be stated in brief.

(3.) A son was born to them on 22.07.80 in the Dufferin Hospital, Lucknow. Smt. Madhubala Srivastava and Ajeet Kumar Sinha lived together at the latter's house up to 22.05.81 whereafter Smt. Madhubala Srivastava on account of relations having become strained, shifted to her parents' house at Bareilly taking the infant child with her. Ajeet Kumar Sinha and bid parents visited Madhubala Srivastava at Bareilly on 30.05.81 for a compromise. It is stated than when Smt. Madhubala Srivastava had been called inside by her mother, Sinha picked up the baby i.e. Master Man too, who is Petitioner in this case and left the place. It is further stated that opposite party No. 1 and his family members were approached for the return of the child but they denied that child was in their custody. On 05.09.81 an FIR was lodged against the opposite parties Under Sections 363 and 365 IPC. A search warrant was also issued but Master Man too could not be recovered. Smt. Madhubala Srivastava had to give up the pairvi of the case Under Section 363/365 IPC on account of the threats held out to her. Her father, who was also doing the pairvi of the case, was assaulted on 25.05.82. A case was also filed by Smt. Madhubala Srivastava, under the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the child but the case was also dropped by her on account of the threats held out to her and because she had come to know, in the meantime, that the child had been placed in the custody of somebody else. She recently came to know that the child was living with the opposite parties at their house No. 224, Arya Nagar, P. S. Naka Hindola, Lucknow and, therefore, this petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed for the custody of that child. It is stated that opposite party No. 1 who was in private service has since been removed from service while Smt. Madhubala was earning more than Rs. 700/ - per month and was, therefore, in a better position to educate the child and to look after him, It is not disputed that Master Man too has been living with his father since the time of his infancy. Admittedly, when the child was only few days old, the father (Ajeet Kumar Sinha) is said to have brought him at his place. It is also not disputed that the proceedings Under Section 363/365 IPC which were initiated by Smt. Madhubala Snvastava have since been dropped. The petition filed under the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act has also been dropped. As a matter of fact, as stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the petition under the Guardian and Wards Act has been dismissed in default.