Criminal Writ Petition No.1014 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.1014 of 2011 Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 Jaipal & another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. P. S. Hundal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sameer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Jaipal and his wife Kamlesh, who are grand parents of the minor children Amrit Kumar aged about 8 years and Deepanshu aged about 6 years, have filed the instant Habeas Corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for seeking production of the minor children in the court. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition, petitioners have also prayed that the petitioners be allowed to meet the grand children once or twice a month. Respondent No.2 is widowed daughter-in-law of the petitioners and is mother of the minor children. Respondent No.3 is father of respondent No.2 whereas respondent No.4 is sister of respondent No.3. According to office report, reply on behalf of respondents Criminal Writ Petition No.1014 of 2011 -2- No.2 to 4 has not been filed. However, counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 states that he has filed reply in the Registry and also supplied advance copy thereof to counsel for the petitioners, who admits this fact. Any way, copy of the reply submitted by counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 in the the Court is taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 vehemently contended that petitioners should approach the Guardian Court for seeking appropriate relief regarding custody of the minor children. The contention is completely misconceived. The petitioners are not seeking custody of the minor children. The petitioners who are grand parents of the minor children simply want to have right to meet the children. For this purpose, there is no necessity of directing the petitioners to approach the Guardian Court, although either party shall be at liberty to approach the Guardian Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. Keeping in view the limited prayer made in the instant writ petition, the same can be disposed of. Respondents No.2 has levelled allegation of attempt to rape her against petitioner No.1. However, the petitioners in the instant writ petition have made limited prayer to have visiting or meeting right with their minor grand children. The prayer made by the petitioners is very genuine. Father of the minor children has died. Petitioners are grand parents of the minor children. Keeping in view the social and cultural fabric of our society, the petitioners should be allowed to meet the minor Criminal Writ Petition No.1014 of 2011 -3- children. It will not cause any harm either to the minor children or to respondent No.2 who is their mother. The question of welfare or interest of the minors is not involved in allowing the petitioners to meet their minor grand children. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is allowed. Respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to allow the petitioners to meet their aforesaid minor grand children once a month. Counsel for the petitioners after seeking instructions from petitioner No.1 states that brother of respondent No.2 is married with niece of one Sham Lal residing at Karnal and Sham Lal is also friendly with the petitioners and therefore, the meeting may be held at the house of Sham Lal. Both the parties are also residents of Karnal. The prayer made is justified. Accordingly respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to take both the minor children to the house of Sham Lal on first Sunday of every English calendar month at or before 10.30am and the petitioners shall be allowed to live with the minor children there till 4.30pm provided that the petitioners shall not take the children with them anywhere else. However, the parties may with mutual consent also fix some other meeting place if so desired by them. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 12th July, 2011 'raj'