KANAK KHANDELWAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Kanak Khandelwal (minor) and Shyam Sundar Khandelwal filed this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition for issuance of a writ order or di rection in the nature of mandamus direct ing the respondents to produce the corpus of petitioner No. 1 Kanak Khandelwal who is in illegal custody of respondent Nos. 2 to 7.

(2.) PRESENT petition has been pre ferred on the ground that Tie daughter of Suresh Chand Khandelwal, respondent No. 2 was married with Ravi Khandelwal son of petitioner No. 2 on 4.3.2003. After the marriage Ravi Khandelwal and daughter of Suresh Chand Khandelwal lived happily and petitioner No. 1 Kanak Khandelwal was born out of the wedlock on 2.3.2004. Petitioner No. 2 admitted petitioner No. 1 in Euro Kids Play School Radhapuram, National Highway 2, Mathura, Kanak is still studying. It is alleged that in the night of 20/21.6.2008 some unknown persons had committed murder of the mother of petitioner No. 1, Kanak. Ravi Khandelwal the father of petitioner No. 1, lodged a F.I.R. at P.S. Highway, District Mathura about the occurrence, which was registered as case crime No. 268 of 2008 against un known persons. After the occurrence, the Media had taken interview of respondent Nos. 2 to 7, who stated before the Media that they had no complaint against the husband and his family members. They have never tortured the daughter of respondent No. 2, who was married to Ravi Khandelwal. It is further alleged that the wife of Ravi Khandelwal was cremated with the mutual consent of the parties. Respondent No. 2, his wife Smt. Shyam Lata Khandelwal respondent No. 3, Pawan Khandelwal respondent No. 4 son of re spondent No. 2, Rachna Khandelwal wife of Pawan Khandelwal respondent No. 5, Pankaj Khandelwal son of Suresh Khan delwal respondent No. 6 and Sonu Khan delwal respondent No. 7 forcibly took away petitioner No. 1 after cremation. Pe titioner No. 2 being real grand father of petitioner No. 1 is entitled to the custody of petitioner No. 1. Notices were issued to the respondents to produce petitioner No. 1 before this Court on 16.2.2009.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner No. 1 is un der the influence of his Nana and Nani. Petitioner No. 2 is real grand father who has retired from the Bank services and if the child is left in his company, he would happily go with petitioner No. 2. However, at the time of hearing petitioner No. 2 was not present in Court. A request was made that the child be put in some Hotel at Allahabad, so that petitioner No. 2 may come and meet him on the next date of hearing.