Gunjeet Singh vs State of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing Respondent no. 9 and the State. Respondent no.9 has appeared through

her counsel and filed counter affidavit also. Respondent no. 6 to 8 have also filed vakalatnama.Â

Petitioner claiming himself to be the husband of Respondent no.9 has sought issuance of writ of habeas corpus for release of his wife and minor son

Harshal Singh aged about 3 years who are said to be in the illegal custody of Respondent no. 6 to 8. Their whereabouts are not known to the

petitioner. Therefore, he has prayed for a direction upon the State authorities to trace their whereabouts without any delay as he has apprehension

about their life and liberty at the hands of the respondent no. 6 to 8. Respondent no.6 to 8 are fatherin-law, brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the

petitioner.Â

As per the case of the petitioner, his marriage with respondent no.9 wife was solemnized according to Sikh faith and rituals on 16.08.2013 and in

the year 2015 they were blessed with a son namely Harshal Singh. Thereafter, their relationship got worsened due to unwarranted interference from

Respondent no. 6 to 8. He has alleged ill treatment on the part of the wife because he was engaged in the care of his father who had undergone knee

replacement surgery in 2015. She insisted upon moving to a separate house. She threatened him of lodging false dowry case. She also threatened him

of committing suicide. His 2 and ½ year old son had also suffered because of her merciless treatment. All these have caused him mental trauma. In

the midst of all these, she left her  matrimonial home in July 2016 at the instigation of Respondent no.6 to 8, leaving behind her 1 year old son without

informing anyone. However, she returned home safely. Further averments in the writ petition relate to instances of marital discord in their life. Finally

she has left on 12.10.2017 with her mother to Kanpur and then to Assam and refused to come back. Petitioner along with his father went to Tinsukia

on 7.11.2017 to meet them but her parents refused and demanded Rs.5 Lakhs for their son’s marriage. They were insulted and abused. Education

of his son in such circumstances is also getting badly affected. He has made request through letter to the Respondent no.9 to come back, which has

not been heeded to. He has also approached the Hindpiri Police Station, Ranchi to search his son but they refused to pay any attention. In these

circumstances he has approached this Court for the instant relief.Â

Averments made in the writ petition have been denied by the Respondent no. 9 through counter affidavit. She has alleged harassment for dowry on

the part of the petitioner and his family members. She has tolerated harassment since 2014 and even after the birth of the male child. They have

expelled her from her matrimonial home. Petitioner has filed a guardianship case being case no. 7 of 2018 before the Family Court, Ranchi.

Respondent no. 9 has approached the Apex court in Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 287 of 2018 wherein the proceedings of the said guardianship case

has been stayed by the interim order dated 22.02.2018, which is enclosed as part of Annexure-1 series. Respondent no.9 alleges that only after the

marriage she came to know that petitioner was a divorcee. She is a Post Graduate with B.Ed and has worked as Teacher in different schools prior to

her marriage. She has alleged that sister of the petitioner who is also a divorcee had shifted to her matrimonial house along with her daughter and

started dominating and harassing the respondent. Petitioner and his father are well known businessmen in Ranchi from the Sikh community and are

influential. Because of her poor health condition and apathetical attitude of the petitioner, her mother took her away along with her son on

14.10.2017 at Tinsukia, Assam where she is residing with her parents till date.Â

State have also filed counter affidavit.Â

Reply to the counter affidavit of the Respondent no.9 has also been filed by the petitioner. In reply also petitioner alleges illegal custody and

detention of respondent no.9 and his son by the respondent no. 6 to 8. Petitioner has also pleaded that Title Suit (Matrimonial) No. 36 of 2018 and

Misc.(M) Case No. 32 of 2018 have been filed by the Respondent no.9 against the petitioner for divorce. He has alleged that respondents have not

even allowed him to speak to his son. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction for production of respondent

no.9 and his minor son and in the alternative for making arrangement for visitation rights. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment

rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Manju Tiwary Vrs. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari and another reported in AIR 1990 SC 1156 and also in the

case of Syed Saleemuddin Vrs. Dr. Rukhsana and others reported in (2001) 5 SCC 247, para 11 thereof on the prayer for custody of the child. He has

submitted that welfare of the child is paramount consideration of the Court.Â

Learned counsel for the Respondent no.9 has strongly opposed the prayer in the light of the stand taken on her behalf in the counter affidavit. He

has submitted that the wife is fully capable to take decision on her own and left her matrimonial home only on account of torture and harassment at

the hands of petitioner and his family members for not fulfilling the dowry demand. The matrimonial suit seeking divorce is also pending before the

competent court at Tinsukia, Assam where petitioner has already been served notice but is yet to enter appearance. Prayer for production of

respondent no.9 and minor son aged 3 years therefore cannot be allowed in the aforesaid state of facts and pendency of both guardianship case and

divorce case.Â

We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant material pleadings on record and the judgment

cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claiming himself as an aggrieved husband/ father has alleged illegal detention of his wife and

minor son at the hands of Respondent no.6 to 8. Allegations made through the averments in the writ petition have been denied by respondent no.9

through her counter affidavit. She has also made allegations against the petitioner and his family members. In these background facts it is also evident

that petitioner has himself instituted a suit for custody of the child being Guardianship case no. 7 of 2018 before the learned Family Court, Ranchi. The

proceedings of which have been challenged by Respondent no.9 before the Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court have passed an interim order of

stay on the proceedings of the Guardianship case at Family Court, Ranchi. At the same time Respondent no.9 has instituted a Title Suit (Matrimonial)

for divorce against the petitioner which is pending in Tinsukia, Assam. Therefore, issues relating to custody of the minor child who is less than 5 years

age and a suit for dissolution of marriage between the parties are pending before different competent Courts of law. Proceedings of the guardianship

case are under stay by the orders of the Apex Court where petitioner has also appeared.Â

In view of the aforesaid facts and the pendency of litigations relating to guardianship and divorce in different competent Court between the parties,

this Court does not consider it proper to entertain the writ petition on the plea of illegal custody of Respondent no. 9 and minor child at the hands of

Respondent no.6 to 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.Â