MANPREET KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, by way of present criminal writ petition, seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing respondents No. 4 to 6 to produce and release the detenu -master Balraj Singh, aged two and half years, son of the petitioner, from their illegal custody. Petitioner also seeks any other writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, reply by way of affidavit dated 4.3.2015, on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6, filed in the Court today, is taken on record and copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that minor son of the petitioner is being illegally detained by respondents No. 4 to 6. Father of the child is staying abroad. He further submits that there is no female member in the family to look after this child of tender age. He would next contend that custody of the minor son of the petitioner may also be granted to the petitioner, so that she may look after her minor son, being the mother and natural guardian. He also submits that the petitioner is serving in a private concern at Ludhiana and she wants to admit her son in a school at Ludhiana. He concluded by submitting that since parents of the petitioner are also staying with her, she would be in a much better position to look after her minor son. He prays for allowing the present criminal writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned senior counsel for respondents No. 4 to 6 submits that the minor was not being illegally detained by respondents No. 4 to 6. It was the petitioner herself who left the child in the custody of respondents No. 4 to 6, when she was planning to go abroad to stay with her husband. In such a situation, it cannot be said that respondents No. 4 to 6 were detaining the minor illegally, as alleged by the petitioner. He further submits that if the petitioner wants custody of the child, she may be relegated to her alternative remedy before the appropriate forum under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ('Act of 1956' for short). He concluded by submitting that since the petitioner has concealed material facts from the notice of this Court, present petition amounts to misuse of process of law and the same is liable to be dismissed.