SANJEEV MALHOTRA Vs. UNION TERRITORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Father of child Sidharth (aged about 5 years) has filed this writ petition for issuance of writ of habeas corpus for producing the said child Sidharth who is said to be in custody of respondent 3 Dr. Aradhana, who is mother of the said child. This is an unfortunate litigation between the parents of the child, who could not reconcile themselves in their matrimonial relations. The petitioner married respondent No. 3 on 21.4.1987. From this wedlock child Sidharth was born on 5.9.1990. The contents of the writ petition and the reply filed by respondent 3 indicate that the relations between the husband and wife started straining, and there are allegations and counter-allegations. The sequence of events also indicate that some efforts were made to reconcile the couple, but these ultimately yielded no result. In the course of this judgment I will refer to some of such events.

(2.) In so far as it pertains to the writ of habeas corpus, the contention by the petitioner is that child Sidharth was taken away by respondent 3 on 22.3.1996, and thus he is deprived of his custody. It is contended by him that Sidharth was staying with him upto March, 1996 and he was studying in D.A.V. Public School, Mohali. Respondent 3 used to visit at Mohali on week-ends or on off days. At this juncture, it may be mentioned that the petitioner and his wife respondent 3 are Medical practitioners. Respondent 3 is employed as Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, and at the relevant time she was posted at Kalanour, District Yamunanagar, Haryana. However, her place of residence as shown in the petition is, House No. 5983, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, U.T. Chandigarh. It may be mentioned that Mohali is also adjacent to Chandigarh as suburban. It appears from the submissions from both the sides that the petitioner and respondent 3 had separate residence for one reason or the other. One of the reasons was that respondent 3 was employed as Medical Officer and she used to be posted at various places. May it be, as per the petition, respondent 3 used to come to the petitioner till March, 1996 and used to meet her child Sidharth. The petitioner submits that on 22.3.1996 respondent 3 took away the child to Patiala under the pretext of meeting her parents, and thereafter did not return the child. On 8.4.1996 respondent 3 is said to have come to the house of the petitioner along with her maternal uncle and aunt and took away all her belongings with her in the presence of petitiontr's neighbours, family members and relatives. Thereafter her parents shifted to Manimajra, Chandigarh, and respondent 3 got the child Sidharth admitted to Class I in D.A.V. School, Sector 8, Panchkula in April, 1996 without the consent of and information to the petitioner. The petitioner further claims that respondent 3 and her parents have left instructions with the school authorities not to allow the petitioner and other family members of his family to see the child. The petitioner, therefore, has rushed to the Court for the custody of the child.

(3.) The real contestant is respondent 3. She filed a reply and refuted the allegations made in the petition. She has also put forth a grievance as to how on various occasions she was being harassed and even assaulted. In so far as the allegations made by the petitioner and the respondent against each other are concerned, presently I need not go into details because that aspect is not required to be adjudicated in this writ petition. The net result of the contentions raised in this writ petition clearly indicate that the relations between the husband and the wife have been strained considerably and both of them are now struggling over the custody of the child.