IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Writ Petition No.2411 of 2010 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 BHAWNA ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Addl.AG, Punjab. Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate, for respondents 3 to 5. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) 1 This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, directing respondent No.3 i.e. Gaurav Handa alias Pally to produce minor child; namely, Shivam alias Krrish, aged about 4-1/2 years, in Court. 2 Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 has pointed out that the custody of the child was given by the petitioner to respondent No.3/father of the child, when the disputes between the parties had been settled by way of compromise. The parties had agreed that the petitioner would receive a sum of ` 7 lacs in lieu of her rights and the child would remain in custody of Criminal Writ Petition No.2411 of 2010 (O&M) 2 respondent No.3/father. A sum of ` 3.50 lacs has been received by the petitioner in partial execution of the compromise. The parties were required to file a petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 5 has further pointed out that the petitioner, on her part, has not complied with her part of the agreement/compromise. 3 I have considered the rival contentions. 4 Annexure P-4 in CRM 15651 -M of 2010 (Gaurav Handa and others v. State of Punjab and others) is order dated 14.9.2009, passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, which reads as under:- “Stated that the compromise is being effected between us therefore I have no objection if bail is granted to Manju Handa. Today I have handed over the custody of my son Shivam who is 3-1/2 years old to Ritesh Handa and Manju Handa on behalf of Gaurav. I have received part payment of the on going compromise.” 5 On a perusal of the order, it transpires that the petitioner had voluntarily handed over the custody of the child to respondent No.3/father of the child, in compliance of terms of compromise. A sum of ` 3.50 lacs has already been received by the petitioner in partial execution of the compromise. 6 No ground for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus is made out; firstly, because respondent No.3 is none other but father of the child and; secondly, because the petitioner had voluntarily given the custody of the child to Criminal Writ Petition No.2411 of 2010 (O&M) 3 respondent No.3/father, in execution of terms of compromise. 7 The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. September 13, 2011 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?