RASHMI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner (wife) seeking custody of her minor son Dhawaj Sharma alleging him to be in the illegal custody of respondent no.5 (husband).

(2.) Vide order dtd. 18/1/2021 passed by this Court, both the parties were directed to remain present before this Court along with their minor son Dhawaj Sharma. Pursuant thereto, both the parties appeared before this Court along with the minor son Dhawaj Sharma. Earnest endeavor was made to secure a reconciliation through interactions with the parents and the child. However, all efforts of reconciliation having failed, the petition is being disposed of on merits.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 10/12/2013, the marriage of petitioner and respondent no.5 was solemnized according to Hindu rites and customs. Out of their wedlock, a son Dhawaj Sharma born on 9/1/2016 and on 20/7/2020 when the habeas corpus petition was filed, Dhawaj Sharma was about 4 1/2 years old. He further submits that thereafter some matrimonial disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No. 5. In December, 2018, the petitioner came to Bharatpur upon her uncle's death, but thereafter she was not allowed to enter her matrimonial house. In this way, the petitioner along with her minor son were deserted by the respondent no.5. On 10/7/2020 when the petitioner was sitting at her parental house with her minor son Dhawaj Sharma, a black coloured car came outside the gate, Respondent No. 5 got out of the aforementioned vehicle, stormed inside the house and took the child away from the legal custody of the petitioner. She immediately informed the police in this regard, but the respondent no.5 could not be caught. Further, a complaint was also submitted by the petitioner in Police Station, Udhyog Nagar, Bharatpur. He further submits that minor son of the petitioner has been in the illegal custody of respondent no.5. Custody of minor son Dhawaj Sharma could have been taken only by due process of law. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and submits that mother being a natural guardian, custody of minor child aged about 5 years, shall ordinarily be with the mother in view of the provisions of the Act.