PINKI DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition, the writ petitioner has sought restoration of custody of her two minor children aged about 10 years and 8 years, who are allegedly being kept in confinement of respondent nos.7 and 8, being brothers of late husband of the petitioner.

(2.) Considering the cry of the mother for her children, by order dated 15.11.2016, we had directed the Superintendent of Police, Patna to ensure the production of respondent nos.7 and 8 as also the minor children of the petitioner before this Court on 17th of November, 2016. Let it be noted that in the aforesaid order, due to typographical mistake, it is noted that the children are living with the mother. The matter was, accordingly, listed on 17th of November, 2016 in our Chambers and, apart from respondent nos.7 and 8, the petitioner along with her mother was present. Respondent nos.7 and 8 had also produced the two children.

(3.) We first talked to the two children alone after making them comfortable. They both pointed out that when their mother was arrested for allegedly having conspired and killed their father, they were left alone and their uncles took them in their custody. They were happy with their uncles and their families. They were going to school regularly. There were no reasons to complain. Asked, if they wanted to go and live with their mother, they expressed their desire to continue to stay with their uncles rather than their mother, for the reason that their mother had conspired and killed their father. The last part was obviously said because, being of impressionable age and in the company of their uncles for almost a year, they could have been tutored to think so. We then asked separately the writ petitioner who showed her anxiety to have the children with her. She obviously denied having anything to do with the murder of her husband. We asked her, whether she had an earlier marriage as well, she denied initially but then accepted the fact. She alleged that only to grab her husband's property and to deny her the right to the same, after the unfortunate death of her husband, her brother-in-laws got her falsely implicated in connivance with the police. We then talked to the uncles of the children, respondent nos.7 and 8, who disclosed that the writ petitioner in fact was initially married to one Sunil Kumar Singh in the year 1999 but the marriage did not last. She then married to Avorik Rai in the year 2002, from which second wedlock the two children were born. They alleged that recently the said Sunil Kumar Singh, petitioner's first husband, came back into her life and the two conspired and, allegedly, eliminated her present husband so that she could settle with her property with Sunil Kumar Singh. The police, upon investigation, unearthed this plot. She and the Sunil Kumar Singh are facing trial for the murder of Avorik Rai. She was in custody for over nine months and the children having left behind were looked after by the children's uncle, who wanted to bring up the children as their own children and keep them away from their mother's bad influence.