PARISNI Vs. SATNAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Parsini petitioner had filed this habeas corpus petition for restoring the custody of her daughter Paramjit Kaur to her contending that her daughter was hardly 16 years of age and had been forcibly taken away by the respondents prior to 26.3.1991 at about 10 p.m. It is further averred that the present respondents had earlier filed Criminal Writ Petition which was got dismissed from this Court on 26.3.1991 as having become infructuous by making an entirely wrong statement that the mother of the detenu had allowed her to join the company of Satnam Singh, the present respondent. It is further stated that as a matter of fact Satnam Singh had induced Mst. Paramjit Kaur to accompany her without effecting any marriage and that on the basis of search warrants got issued under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Satnam Singh aforesaid, Paramjit Kaur was got produced before the Magistrate at Ludhiana on 14.3.1991 before whom she stated having not married Satnam Singh but only had fallen in love with him. The Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana then directed the confinement of Paramjit Kaur in the Nari Niketan but later on vide order dated 20th March, 1991 her custody was restored to her mother. On the basis of such like allegations, A.S. Nehra, J. vide order dated 3.4.1991 appointed warrant officer for effecting the recovery of Paramjit Kaur. The warrant officer accordingly served notice upon the respondents and directed Respondent No. 1 to produce Paramjit Kaur detenu in this Court. Under these circumstances, the petition has been put up before me as I had disposed of the earlier Criminal Writ Petition No. 323 of 1991.

(2.) Paramjit Kaur and the petitioner were made to meet in the chambers of this Court for some time. Thereafter, statement of Paramjit Kaur was recorded wherein she again asserted that she is about 21 years of age and was residing with Satnam Singh respondent of her own accord.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the record of this petition as well as of Cr. W.P. 323 of 1991, disposed of by this court as having become infructuous on 26.3.1991. In such like cases where the mother claims the custody of her ward in a habeas corpus petition, the Court has to keep in view the age of the ward and her future interests. The original marks sheet issued by the Punjab Education Board reveals that Paramjit Kaur daughter of Kishan Singh had appeared in the middle standard examination under Roll No. 39611 but had failed. This certificate was issued on 15th May, 1984. A copy of the Gazette Notification of her result reveals her date of birth as 15.2.1971 Annexure P-1 in Crl. W.P. No. 323/91. Keeping in view the general tendency that parents of the students at the time of admission usually give lesser age, it can be well inferred that Paramjit Kaur was born either on that day or some time earlier. If that is so, then she is certainly more than 20 years of age now. From the tenor of her statement it appears that it would be for her benefit if she is allowed to stay with Satnam Singh respondent.