KIRAN RANI Vs. KRISHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KIRAN Rani, it appears from the facts of this case, has approached this Court through present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for recovery of her infant child, Gaurav, aged only one year from the custody of respondents, who are none others than her husband and his relations in compelling circumstances. Petitioner was married with respondent-Krishan Kumar in May, 1992 at Sangrur. Out of this wed-lock a son was born about a year ago. It is pleaded that respondents were not happy with petitioner for not bringing adequate dowry. Consequently, she was made to live with her father at Sangrur alongwith her infant child, Gaurav. Respondents started putting pressure on her as also on her father to get divorce so that respondent-husband was able to solemnise second marriage. This was, obviously, unacceptable to petitioner. It is further pleaded that the respondents hatched a conspiracy and called petitioner alongwith her father to Hoshiarpur in the garb of rehabilitating her. When petitioner alongwith her infant son and father reached at Hoshiarpur at the house of respondents on February 19,1994, the son was forcibly taken from her and she was made to sign certain papers under the threat that if she was not to comply with their directions and sign the documents, her son, Gaurav would be killed. Finding no way out to resist the demand of respondents, who were threatening to kill her son, she succumbed to the pressure and signed certain papers produced before her. Once this object of respondents was achieved, she and her father were pushed out of the house and they were told to leave Hoshiarpur. Respondents further threatened the petitioner that Gaurav would be kept by them as a security for getting divorce from the Court and if she was to resist the decree of divorce, respondents would kill her son. When frantic efforts of petitioner to secure the custody of her only son, both from Hoshiarpur as well as Sangrur police, brought to tangible result, she approached this Court for the relief indicated in the earlier part of this judgment.

(2.) IT is pleaded that the life of infant son Gaurav, is in the danger as the minor is taking breast feed, not being used to take other food. It is also pleaded the petitioner is also feeling complications as the milk is flowing from her breasts and in case Gaurav is not given breast feed of which he is used to, not only that his life would be in danger but petitioner might also be in for some physical trouble on account of continuous flow of milk from her breasts.

(3.) IN the divorce deed, Annexure R-l, after narrating the date of marriage and other things, like dispute that had surfaced between the parties, settlement with regard to various matters, like, return of dowry etc- is mentioned from Clauses 6 to 10 which reads thus : "6. That both the parties agreed to return the items of Istridhan and other articles presented to each other at the time of marriage and thereafter. Consequently, thereupon, it was also decided that party No. 1 will pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in cash to party No. 2 as compensation of expenses incurred on the marriage party and miscellaneous expenses. . 7. That out of their wed-lock, a son named Mr. Gaurav was born on 20. 2. 1993 and it was decided that the son will be given to Party No. 1. 8. That the articles gifted by the Party No. 2 to Party No. 1 containing clothes, beddings, furniture, steel box (Peti), utensils and golden ornaments etc. will be returned by party No. 1 to party No. 2 simultaneously on the above transaction. 9. That both the parties will have no right to seek any legal Court which and with this undertaking. 10. That on completion of the above terms and conditions, both the parties are at liberty to marry any where they like and there will be no objection to each other. "