Crl. W. P. No. 1481 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1481 of 2011 Date of Decision : September 20, 2011 Navneet Kaur .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Loveleen Dhaliwal, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 6. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Navneet Kaur has filed the instant Habeas Corpus writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking release of her minor son Abhay Pratap Singh from custody of private respondents no.4 to 6. Respondents no.4 and 5 are father and grandmother respectively of the minor child, whereas respondent no.6 is maternal uncle of respondent no.4. Petitioner's case is that the alleged detenue Abhay Pratap Singh was born on 14.11.2007 out of the wedlock of petitioner with respondent Crl. W. P. No. 1481 of 2011 2 no.4. The petitioner alleged that she was living separately from respondent no.4 for the last many months. Respondent no.4 was alleged to be drug addict. Respondent no.5 is stated to be non-resident Indian (NRI) and Green Card Holder and resident of United States of America (USA). However, when the petition was filed, respondent no.5 was in India. Petitioner alleged that respondent no.5 wanted to take away the minor child to USA. With this motive, respondents no.4 to 6 visited the petitioner at her parental home on 20.06.2011. Respondent no.5 pretended that she had come to India to settle her son i.e. respondent no.4, who would also be got admitted in de-addiction center. However, in hustle, respondents no.4 to 6 took the child and ran away. Reply on behalf of respondent no.4, filed today in Court, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. In the reply, averments made by the petitioner have been broadly controverted, although it has been admitted that the minor child has been born out of wedlock of the petitioner with respondent no.4. It has been alleged in the reply that the petitioner left her matrimonial home and also left the minor child in the matrimonial home on 26.08.2010 and is now living at her parental home. Thus, according to the reply, the child never remained with the petitioner after she left the matrimonial home. Averment that the child was taken away on 20.06.2011 has been denied. Various other pleas have been raised in the reply. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the Crl. W. P. No. 1481 of 2011 3 case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that according to the school certificate (Annexure P-2), the minor child was student of school in Village Tepla where the petitioner is residing with her parents and it would depict that the child was in the custody of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that respondent no.4 has now got the child admitted in a school at Khanna on 09.08.2011 corroborating the petitioner's version that the child was taken from her custody on 20.06.2011. Counsel for respondents no.4 to 6, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner left the matrimonial home and did not take the child with her and the child is with respondent no.4 since then. Pursuant to order of the preceding date, respondent no.4 has brought the child Abhay Pratap Singh today in Court. The petitioner, who is present in person in the Court, has been allowed to meet the child in the Court room itself. Disputed question of fact, whether the child was in the custody of the petitioner and was taken away from her on 20.06.2011 by respondents no.4 to 6 or whether the child remained in the custody of respondent no.4 since the time the petitioner left the matrimonial home, cannot be adjudicated upon in this Habeas Corpus writ petition. School certificate (Annexure P-2) is dated 16.07.2011 and has apparently been obtained to produce the same in support of the writ petition. The said certificate does Crl. W. P. No. 1481 of 2011 4 not even mention as to when the child was admitted in the said school. In any event, the disputed question of fact can be adjudicated upon only after the parties lead evidence and this can be appropriately done by Guardian Court. Exercise of Habeas Corpus writ jurisdiction would not be the appropriate remedy in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. Counsel for the petitioner prayed for giving interim direction for permission to the petitioner to meet the child. Necessary interim direction can be sought by the petitioner from the Guardian Court. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall be allowed to meet the child at the house of petitioner's cousin sister Vinder, who is stated to be residing in Village Payal, where respondent no.4 is residing. Accordingly, for three months or till any other interim order is passed by the Guardian Court, which ever is earlier, the petitioner shall be allowed to meet the child Abhay Pratap Singh twice a month i.e. on every second and fourth Sunday of every English Calendar month (starting from 25.09.2011) from 10:00 A.M. to 04:00 P.M., at the house of Vinder aforesaid, where respondent no.4 shall leave the child for the aforesaid meeting. The instant writ petition is disposed of, with liberty to either party to approach the Guardian Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. September 20, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE