CHANDRA KANTA Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set up in this habeas corpus petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is that Pawan aged about 7 years being the son of the petitioner was with her up to 20-6-1999, on which day Banshi Lal (respondent No. 3), grandfather of Pawan, took him away from the Upadhyaya Public School, Agarsen Nagar, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, and is keeping him in detention. It is stated that the husband of the petitioner, Daulat Soni, having died on 13-6-1999, the petitioner is entitled to the custody of Pawan.

(2.) In the reply, Banshi Lal has come out with the case that the boy was reading in Bal Gyan Mandir, Jodhpur and he is a regular student of the school, and that he is living with him from the beginning. It is denied that the respondent had taken away Pawan from any school of Jaipur. It is stated that the petitioner is unemployed lady having no source of income and, therefore, she is not in a position to maintain her minor child. It is averred that the petition involves disputed questions of facts which can be determined only after recording the evidence of the parties and the petitioner has got alternate remedy under the Guardians and Wards Act.

(3.) The respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are State functionaries, in their return, state that there is a dispute between the mother and the grandfather of the child regarding the custody and the dispute can be decided only by the Family Court.