BILKIS Vs. MUNNE KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Habeas Corpus petition by the wife against her husband is a usual off shoot of matrimonial differences and separate living of spouses and manifests their dispute about the custody of their male child, Id Khan alias Pappu, who is about 1 1/2 years of age.

(2.) THE petitioner was married to the respondent in October, 1982 and they begot a son out of their wedlock. She expressed her desire before the Sub Divisional magistrate, Joura to live with her father Munshi Khan at Gwalior and was accordingly sent with. her father by order, deted 8-2-1986 (Annexure "c") of the Sub Divisional magistrate. Ever since 8-2-1986, she is living with her father at Gwalior. The son remained with the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that she was rescued by her father with the help of police from her miserable plight due to her misfortune and inability to satisfy the respondent's greed for dowry, but her son Id Khan continues in the illegal custody of the respondent. She is claiming his custody and care on the ground that she is legally entitled to the same, She has asserted that her father is a driver and draws sufficient salary to maintain her and her minor son. The respondent has no permanent source of income. His four sisters and parents are dependent on him. He is intending to remarry. The petitioner has no intention either to divorce the respondent or to remarry. Under the circumstances, it is in the interest and welfare of the child that it should live in the care and custody of the petitioner.

(3.) THE respondent has denied all material allegations against him. He has relied on the statements made by the petitioner before the Police and the Sub Divisional magistrate, Joura. He has alleged that the child was neglected by the petitioner and was, therefore, looked after by its paternal grand-mother. The petitioner was always keen to visit her father at Gwalior. Off and on, the respondent was taking her to her father at gwalior, but did not allow her to spend the nights in his absence at Gwalior, because her father had to be away from home during night hours in connection with his duties as a driver in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The respondent has also asserted that he is legally entitled to the care and custody of the child and that it would be in the welfare of the child to keep it in his care and custody.