BEENA JAISWAL Vs. DEEPAK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) G. P. Mathur, J. Smt. Beena Jaiswal has filed this habeas corpus petition praying that her son Himanshu Kumar alias Lucky be released from the illegal custody of the respondents and be handed over to her custody. The respondent No. 1 Deepak Kumar is the husband of the peti tioner, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, namely, Ram Dulare and Smt. Kunta are her-in -laws and respondent No. 4 Akkoo is her husband's brother.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, in that she was married to Deepak Kumar on 4-12-1992 and her parents gave substantial dowry in the marriage. However, the respondents continued to make further demands of dowry. She give birth to a male child Lucky alias Himanshu Kumar on 9-5-1994 at her parents house who live in the same city of Kanpur. THE respondents tried to forcibly take away the child Lucky on 22-5-1994 re garding which a complaint was made at the police station and at the inter vention of the Incharge, SI of the police station, an agreement was arrived at between the parties and thereafter the started living in her husband's home. THE respondents gave her very cruel treatment regarding which she gave information to her parents who came and took her to their house. THE respondents did not allow her to take her son Lucky and they were illegally detaining him. THE case of the respondents is that there was no demand of dowry and some ordinary gifts were given at the time of marriage which are customary in the family. THE petitioner and her parents triad to create problems soon after the marriage and they wanted that Deepak Kumar should live separately and away from his parents and other family mem bers. Rohit-brother of the petitioner abused and misbehaved with the respondents on several occasions and even threatened them with regard to the incident which took place on 22-5-1994. A First Information Report was lodged on the next day but the matter was got compromised at the intervention of some persons and police official. THE petitioner left the house of her husband without his consent sometime in July/august, 1994 leaving the child-Lucky and continued to live in her parents house for quite sometime. She came back but again left the house of her husband on 3-12-1994 against his wishes leaving her son. A FIR regarding this incident was lodged on the same night. THE petitioner moved an application under Section 97, Cr PC which was dismissed. It is further pleaded that the peti tioner has herself left the house of her husband as she does not want to stay with his parents and other relations and that she has no love or affection or concern for her son Lucky alias Himanshu Kumar.

(3.) SRI K. P. Agarwal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the time of marriage Bina Jaiswal, a substantial dowry was given but on account of greed, the respondent No. 1 and his parents continu ed to harass her by making further demands of colour T. V. , Motor-cycle, besides rupees fifty thousand as cash as the petitioner's father who was working in a Bank had received several lakhs by way of post-retirement benefits. Learned counsel has further urged that as the demand of respon dents was not met, the petitioner was thrown out of the house and under force of circumstances, she is living with her parents and the child has been illegally detained. SRI A. K. Yog has strenously controverted the allega tions made against the respondents regarding demand of dowry or of any ill treatment having been meted out to the petitioner. It is difficult to record any finding on this question only on the basis of affidavits and without taking oral evidence. The copies of the F. I. R. complaints and the petition under Section 97, Crpc which was filed by the petitioner do show that some exaggeration has been done by the petitioner and that she also does not want to stay in the same house in which the parents, brothers and sisters of her husband are living. Probably she wants to live separately along with her husband so that she may be able to lead an independent life.