LAWS(P&H)-2021-9-94

SANDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On September 16, 2021
SANDEEP KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing respondent Nos.2 & 3 (official respondents) to get released the detenue, namely, Nitya, aged about 10 years and Kiaan Chugh, aged about two years from the illegal custody of respondent Nos.4 to 6.

(2.) Respondent No.4 is the wife of the petitioner. Respondent No.5 is the father of respondent No.4. Respondent No.6 is her brother.

(3.) It is stated that the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No.4- Latika Arora was solemnized on 29/11/2010 as per Hindu rites at Sonepat (Haryana). About a month after the marriage, respondent No.4 forced the petitioner to move out from his home town-Jind. The petitioner along with respondent No.4 went to Singapore. Thereafter, the petitioner moved to London in October 2011. Respondent No.4 joined him there in March 2012. Two children named Nitya, daughter and Kiaan Chugh, son were born to them. In June 2019, petitioner and respondent No.4 jointly decided to move back to India. They had no family purport in U.K and were struggling with child care. They thought that they would have better family support in India. In July 2019, all four moved back to India. All their belongings weighing 300 to 400 kgs were also shifted to India. It is averred that on their return, respondent No.4 forced the petitioner to take up a separate rented accommodation in Sector 17, Noida instead of moving to her matrimonial home at Jind. Nitya (their daughter) was got admitted in SAPPHIRE, International School, Sector 17, Noida. The mother of the petitioner came to live with them at Noida as she is a widow and needed care and support. The relations of respondent No.4 with the mother of the petitioner were not cordial. She was maltreated by respondent No.4. Occasionally, the sister of the petitioner came to visit them. She was also not treated well by respondent No.4.