Criminal Writ Petition No.934 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No.934 of 2011 Date of Decision : 4th August, 2011 Amarjeet Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab & others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 3. Ms. Rahis Pahwa Dudeja, Advocate for respondent No.2. Petitioner and respondent No.2 and alleged detenue – in person. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Petitioner Amarjeet Kaur has filed this Criminal Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is wife of respondent No.2 Surinder Singh. Their marriage took place in the year 2004. A female child named Gurpreet Kaur was born out of this wedlock on 26.02.2005. Petitioner and respondent No.2 are residing separately for the last 3-4 years as submitted by them present in the Court. The child Gurpreet Kaur was in the custody of the petitioner. However, on 15.03.2011, respondent No.2 took away the child from school behind the back of the petitioner. This fact has been admitted by respondent No.2 in his reply. Criminal Writ Petition No.934 of 2011 -2- The petitioner has filed this habeas corpus petition for directing respondent No.2 to produce the detenue Gurpreet Kaur in Court and to hand over her custody to the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, petitioner and respondent No.2 are present in person in the Court. Respondent No.2 has also brought detenue Gurpreet Kaur. Efforts for reconciliation made but could not succeed. It has been admitted by respondent No.2 in his reply that he had taken away the child on 15.03.2011 from school and till before it, the child was in the custody of the petitioner. It is thus apparent that respondent No.2 took the law into his own hands and took away the child from school without recourse to legal remedy. This is completely impermissible. It is correct that respondent No.2 is father of the child. However, Courts have been established to redress the grievance of aggrieved persons. If respondent No.2 wanted to have custody of the child, he should have approached Guardian Court for appropriate relief. Respondent No.2 himself could not pick up and take away the child from the school while the child was in the custody of the petitioner, who is mother of the child. In view of the aforesaid, the instant criminal writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.2 is directed to hand-over the custody of the child Gurpreet Kaur to the petitioner immediately. The child has been got handed over from respondent No.2 to the petitioner in the Court room itself. This order is without prejudice to the right of respondent Criminal Writ Petition No.934 of 2011 -3- No.2 to take recourse to due process of law to seek custody of the child or to seek any other appropriate relief in accordance with law. This order is also without prejudice to merits of FIR got registered by the petitioner regarding alleged kidnapping of the child by respondent No.2. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 4th August, 2011 'raj'