Crl. W. P. No. 1089 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. W. P. No. 1089 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 20, 2009 Brij Bala .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. N. C. Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Gehlawat, Advocate for respondents no.4 to 6. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 628 of 2009 : Application is allowed and reply on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : Brij Bala has filed this petition for issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus for production of minor child Aarsheya Mittal aged four years from the custody of respondents no.4 to 6. Petitioner is wife of respondent no.4, whereas respondents no.5 and 6 are parents of respondent no.4 i.e. parents-in-law of the petitioner. It Crl. W. P. No. 1089 of 2009 (O&M) 2 has inter alia been pleaded in the writ petition that on transfer of respondent no.4 from Chandigarh to Delhi in November 2006, the parties shifted to Noida along with respondents no.5 and 6. Harassment of the petitioner started with birth of the female child i.e. Aarsheya Mittal. On 28.09.2009, respondent no.4 assaulted the petitioner while they were residing in Delhi. Respondent no.4 also assaulted petitioner's sister Rajni Bala, who was present there. Respondent no.4 also started beating Aarsheya Mittal. The petitioner raised hue and cry and also rang up the police and called landlord of the house. Thereupon, respondent no.4 fled away from there with minor daughter Aarsheya Mittal in the car. The petitioner reported the matter to the police in Delhi. Respondent no.4 came back and pleaded with the petitioner that she should go to her parental home at Chandigarh with their minor son and respondent no.4 would bring the daughter to Chandigarh within two days. However, respondent no.4 did not keep the aforesaid promise and did not bring the daughter to petitioner at Chandigarh. The aforesaid averments have been controverted by respondent no.4. It has been alleged that in the first week of September 2009, petitioner's sister Rajni Bala came to stay with the petitioner and respondent no.4. On 28.09.2009, Kundan - an acquaintance of Rajni Bala, came to the house of respondent no.4. Respondent no.4 learnt that the petitioner wanted to give Aarsheya Mittal to Rajni Bala and for this purpose, the petitioner had called Rajni Bala to stay with her so that she could become familiar with the child. Kundan had come to the house of respondent no.4 to take away Rajni Bala and Aarsheya Mittal as well. Respondent no.4 opposed it and told that he did not want to give his daughter to Rajni Bala. Thereupon, the petitioner and her sister became violent and assaulted respondent no.4 and challenged him as to how he could stop Rajni Bala from taking the custody of Aarsheya Mittal. The petitioner started packing up for herself as well as for the minor daughter. Apprehending that the petitioner and her sister may take away Aarsheya Mittal forcibly, respondent no.4 took Crl. W. P. No. 1089 of 2009 (O&M) 3 Aarsheya Mittal with him and reported the matter to the police. However, the matter was later on sorted out in the Police Station and the petitioner, with the help of Rajni Bala and Kundan, went to her parental house at Chandigarh along with minor son without consent of respondent no.4. In view of the allegations of the petitioner herself, it cannot be said that the minor child Aarsheya Mittal has been snatched from the custody of the petitioner by respondent no.4 or by respondents no.4 to 6. Even according to the averments in the petition, the petitioner and respondent no.4 were residing together with both their children. There, apparently some dispute arose on 28.09.2009 and respondent no.4 left the house along with minor girl. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the minor girl was snatched from the custody of the petitioner. On the other hand, till before this incident, the minor girl was residing in joint custody of petitioner and respondent no.4. The petitioner still has the minor son with her and respondent no.4 has the minor daughter with him. In these circumstances, the question of issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus, for production of the minor child Aarsheya Mittal or for handing over her custody to the petitioner, would not arise. If the petitioner thinks that she is the proper guardian of the minor girl, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner would be to move the Guardian Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. The instant writ petition is completely misconceived. In view of the aforesaid, the instant writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to approach the Guardian Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. November 20, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE