AARJOO BEGUM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of Smt. Aarjoo Begum and her two minor daughters, namely, Km. Hareen Fatima and Km. Rahina Fatima against the opposite party no.4 to 9 with the prayer that respondents be directed to release the petitioners from their illegal confinement. It has been alleged hat the marriage of petitioner no.1 Aarjoo Begum was solemnized with Chaudhary Mohd. Aslam Khan in the year 1993 according to Muslim Customs. Out of the said wedlock, four daughters were born; the eldest is aged about 20 years and the second eldest is aged about 18 years. The age of the petitioners no.2 and 3 is 9 years and 8 years respectively. It has further been alleged that the respondent no.5 is the real sister of Smt. Aarjoo Begum while respondent no.4, 6 and 7 are her relatives. The respondents no. 4 to 9 in collusion with each other misguided the petitioner no.1 that in case she performs special worship, she would be blessed with a son. On the aforesaid assurance the respondents no. 4 to 9 took with them the petitioners on 1.7.2015. The petitioner no.1 also took with her cash and jewellery available in her house. An application to this effect was moved to Mahila Thana, Bahraich on 5.7.2015 but no action was taken. The husband of the petitioner no.1 also gave an application to the District Magistrate on 20.7.2015 through registered post but again no action was taken. It has further been alleged that petitioner no.1 is being misguided by respondents no. 4 to 9 and she is not being allowed to meet and talk with her husband. The petitioners are therefore under illegal confinement of respondents no. 4 to 9.

(2.) On 19.8.2015 when the aforesaid petition was taken up Smt. Aarjoo Begum herself appeared in Court and stated that she did not want to live with her husband because she was being continuously ill treated by him. She also stated that she was living in a rental house along with her daughters. The petitioner no.1 was also directed to produce her minor daughters in the Court on the next date 25.8.2015. A perusal of the record shows that on 25.8.2015 the petitioners no.2 and 3 were produced before the Court and counter affidavit was also filed on behalf of the contesting respondents. Thereafter counter and rejoinder affidavits were exchanged between the parties. Subsequently by the order dated 26.2.2016 the husband of the petitioner no.1 Chaudhary Mohd. Aslam Khan was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in the Court within a week and the Senior Registrar was also directed to pay the said amount to the petitioners no.2 and 3 towards their expenses, on their appearance. In compliance of the aforesaid order, an amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited on 1.3.2016.

(3.) The affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner no.1 Smt. Aarjoo Begum reveals that her marriage was performed with Mohd. Aslam Khan in the month of April, 1992 but after the birth of the petitioners no. 2 and 3, he developed illicit relation with sister of the petitioner no.1, who is aged about 48 years. She has also been residing in the same house, in which the petitioner no.1 and her husband were residing. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner no.1 also got entered the name of the sister of petitioner no.1 as his wife in the ration card and other government records while as a matter of fact the husband of petitioner no.1 never married to the sister of the petitioner no.1. It was on account of the illicit relationship, that the petitioner no.1 gave an application to Superintendent of Police, Bahraich for providing security but on account of interference of her relatives, the dispute was settled. Since the husband of the petitioner no.1 was having illicit relation with his sister-in-law, the petitioner no.1 was having no other option except to live separately with her minor daughters. It has also been stated that petitioners no.2 and 3 are studying in Gradient Public School Saadat Ganj, Lucknow. In these circumstances, the custody of the petitioners no.2 and 3 should not be given to their father.