MANJU TIWARI Vs. RAJENDRA TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The child Kartik alias Appu was born on 11-11-1986 at Hathras, to the petitioner, who has claimed his custody in this habeas corpus petition, filed on 8-8-1988. The first respondent Dr. Rajendra Tiwari is the father who had produced the child in this Court on 6-9-1988 pursuant to the specific direction made in that regard by this Court on 23-8-1988. The matter could not, however, be disposed of even on 21-9-1988 when the return and the rejoinder thereto came on records. The delay that has occurred is mainly due to the direction that was considered necessary to be made on 21-9-1988 because the husband/father contested seriously the mental fitness of the wife/mother to be entrusted with the child's custody.

(2.) Before we advert to the averments made in the petition, return and the rejoinder, we may observe even at this stage that talks were held in camera on 21-9-1988 with the husband and the wife to explore possibilities of a reconciliation between the two, so that the mother could come from Hathras and live with the father and the child at Gwalior. This Court had then taken the view that enquiry of the nature ordered in Veena Kapoor's case AIR 1982 SC 792 was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case, but it was still considered necessary to set at rest all doubts raised by the respondent/father about mother's mental unfitness, by making a direction that she be examined by the Head in the Department of Psychiatry of All India Institute of Medical Sciences at New Delhi. That Report dated 3-11-1988 came to the Court only on 30-11-1988 and on 14-12-1988, objections to the Report filed by respondent No. 1 also came on records alone with petitioner's reply to those objections. When hearing of the matter was taken up by us on 16-1-1989, "Additional Objections" filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 also came on records and at our request, Shri M.C. Jain, Deputy Advocate General, also filed copies of correspondence passed between him and Dr. D. Mohan, Head in the Department of Psychiatry at the All India Institute at Delhi. After counsel addressed us on relevant contentions of law and facts, we reserved orders.

(3.) It is established on facts that the petitioner had done her M.A. in Sociology in the year 1978 and she was married on 16-11-1984 to respondent No. 1. It is alleged in the petition that her brother Mr. D.K. Saraswat and her mother gave about Rs. 40,000 in cash besides gold ornaments and such articles as Bajaj Super Scooter, a television set and a refrigerator to make up a dowry at a total cost of Rs. 80,000/-. However, her husband did not give her fair treatment and pressed for a additional dowry of Rs. 50,000/-. It is also alleged that he was in the habit of consuming liquor and in support of that allegation, an affidavit sworn on 17-9-1988 by one Satish Chandra Sharma of Naya Bazar, Lashkar, Gwalior, has been brought on record. The petitioner is alleged to have suffered physical and mental torture at the hands of her husband and the other members of his family for a long time, hoping for a change and for the demand of additional dowry to subside in due curse. It is also alleged that in the month of July, 1985, the petitioner was pushed down by her husband from the second story of the house when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. She miscarried and also suffered fracture of hip bone and leg.