AMYRA DWIVEDI Vs. ABHINAV DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been moved by the petitioner- Smt. Pooja Sharma Dwivedi acting as the mother and next friend of Km. Amyra Dwivedi aged about 3 1/2 years requesting this Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing opposite party No.1 for restoring the custody of the corpus to the petitioner as she is the natural mother of the corpus.

(2.) The petitioner in her petition has stated that the marriage of opposite party No.1 (her husband) was solemnize with her on 11.02.2012 and out of this wedlock the corpus was born on 06.02.2015. Opposite party No.1 is in hotel industry and after completing his course, he got employment in Taj Groups of Hotel at Lucknow. After few months he left the job and join another hotel at Pune, from where also he left the job and again join at Gurgaon and thereafter he did job at various places till he got a job at Dubai (U.A.E.), where he remained till June 2017. She further stated in her petition that she has also done a master course in business administration and before marriage, she was employed with a reputed company and receiving handsome salary and she is likely to join a service with handsome salary.

(3.) Opposite party No.1 namely Abhinav Trivedi on being served filed his counter affidavit admitting his marriage with the petitioner and alleging that the petitioner after marriage came to her matrimonial home but never performed her duties and she continuously insisted him to leave his parents home and live with her maternal aunt. She has never ill-treated, abused or harassed her. He and his family members several times, requested her to return to her matrimonial home and to take proper care and attention of her child, but she denied to came back and has filed the instant petition on the basis of false and fabricated facts with the sole motive to get the custody of the child (corpus). He further stated in his counter affidavit that the petitioner was never abducted by opposite party No.1. The corpus is happily living with him and his family members. Petitioner is not able to take proper care of the child and the child has done remarkable improvement in her health and status while living with opposite party No.1. The ignorance of the petitioner is also clear from the fact that she left the corpus when she (corpus) was ill. The petitioner herself intentionally did not provide her company to the corpus and she (petitioner) was never prevented from meeting her daughter or to visit her matrimonial home. The writ petition is otherwise also not maintainable as the petitioner is having alternative remedy under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act. It is requested that the prayer of the petitioner be dismissed.