KALAWATI SAHU Vs. RAMAKANT SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus by the mother of a three years' old son who is said to have been wrongfully detained by the respondent who is the father of that child.

(2.) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was performed in March, 1984 when the petitioner was hardly about 16 years of age. The union gave birth to a child who is now about three years of age. The petitioner does not seem to be happy in the house of her in-laws. Her allegation is that she was ilitreated at their hands and was expected to bring with her from her parents some cash and a motor bicycle. Although in this petition we are really not concerned with the truth or otherwise of these allegations, but the substance of the petition is that the petitioner does not feel safe in her husband's house and with husband's parents. Her allegation is that on 16.8.1988, her father went to fetch her from Hararai where she was then living with her husband and his parents, she started journey/to her parents' house and carried the child with her. According to her, the child was forcibly snatched away by her husband on 16th of Aug., 1988. On reaching her parents' place, a report in this regard was made to the police which is Annexure-2 filed with the petition. Since then the child is with the respondent. The prayer, therefore, is for restoring custody of child (son) to the petitioner.

(3.) The return filed today on behalf of the respondent shows that before the filing of this petition, the respondent has filed a suit in civil court at Chhindwara within whose jurisdiction the spouse last resided together, for a decree for restoration of conjugal rights. It is stated in the return that since birth, the child is being maintained by his grand-mother, viz., the mother of the respondent, and is so well attached to her that the departure may adversely affect the child. It is also stated that the child is being taken care of at the respondent's place. With the respondent live his sister who is employed, his mother and yet another' brother. For these reasons, the prayer made for putting the child in petitioner's care is opposed.