ANJU SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the mother for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus for the release of detenue her son, namely, Aayansh, aged about 2.5 years, from the illegal custody of respondents No.4 to 7.

(2.) In brief the facts necessary for the disposal of present petition are that the petitioner is a resident of Ambala Cantt. The marriage of petitioner was solemnized with respondent No.4 on 18/11/2015. Out of said wedlock, one boy, namely, Aayansh was born on 26/2/2022. She was being harassed by her in-laws i.e. respondents No.4 to 7 on one pretext or the other and also mercilessly beaten up by respondent No.4. In order to save her matrimonial home and for betterment of her child, the petitioner kept bearing all the sufferings given by the private respondents. On 19/5/2024, respondent No.4, after giving beatings to the petitioner, threw her out of the home with the minor child. Hoping that things will be sorted out in a day or two, she went to the house of her aunt, but when respondent No.4 did not come to take the petitioner and the minor son back, she went to her parental home on 22/5/2024 and since then, she has been residing there along with her minor son.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per Sec. 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of five years, shall ordinarily be with the mother. Respondent No.4 in connivance with his sister Payal i.e. respondent No.7 has illegally taken away the child from the custody of the petitioner. Petitioner has come to know that respondent No.4 has left the minor in the custody of respondents No.5 to 7. They have approach with the local authorities of their area i.e. respondent No.3 due to which, no action has been taken by any official on the illegal conduct of respondents No.4 and 7. It has been further argued that petitioner is a well educated lady and possesses good educational qualification and was even working but she was forced by respondent No.4 to leave her job so as to enable the petitioner to be dependent upon him. Respondent No.4 is a permanent resident of Ambala and is currently working at Noida and it is not possible for him to look after the minor child and thus, he has left the minor with respondents No.5 to 7. He has relied upon Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi through SHO and another, 2018(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 844; Tejaswini Gaud and others Versus Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 1452762; Roxann Sharma Versus Arun Sharma, 2015 AIR (Supreme Court) 2232; Mansi Versus The State of Punjab and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2062221; Rashneet Kaur Versus State of Haryana and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2000108; Neha Versus State of Haryana and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 1721215; Mandeep Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 1765367; Arvinder Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 1776199; Kirandeep Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, Law Finder Doc Id # 2001283; Aparna Jigarbhai Vala Versus State of Gujarat, Law Finder Doc Id # 2544821.