Judgment

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.-

1.The case of the petitioner is as follows:

2. The petitioner Nirmaljit Kaur got married to Surinder Singh Batra as per Sikh rites and from the wedlock a female baby Simran was born on 16-21992. Respondent 2 Gurbachan Singh Batra is the brother of Surinder Singh Batra. Respondent 4 Harbans Kaur is his wife. Respondent 3 Arminderjit Singh Batra is the nephew of Surinder Singh Batra whereas Respondent 5 Ranjita Kaur is the wife of Respondent 3 Arminderjit Singh Batra.

3. According to the petitioner, Surinder Singh Batra died intestate leaving c . behind the petitioner and baby Simran as his only legal heirs. On 23-2-1997, Respondents 2-5 and three other sisters of Surinder Singh Batra and sisters of Respondent 3 forcibly took away baby Simran from the petitioner with ill design. The petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial house by them and since then she has been living with her relatives.

4. It is alleged that the respondents in order to divest the petitioner of her legitimate right to succeed to the estate of her late husband, fabricated a Will dated 19-10-1996 purported to have been executed by her husband. The two witnesses to the Will are Joginder Singh and one 1.S. Batra (since dead). The Will was got registered on 31-3-1997 after the death of the petitioner's husband (died on 23-2-1997) without notice to the petitioner. The alleged Will named Arminderjit Singh as the guardian of the child Simran on the ground that the testator's wife failed to take care of her. According to the petitioner, the Will does not bear the signatures of her husband and the Will falls to the ground for want of compliance with the statutory requirement of ' Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 as the Will was not attested by the two witnesses each of whom had seen the testator signing the Will in their presence. Each of the witnesses has not signed the Will in the presence of the testator, though it was signed by the two witnesses. This apart, Surinder Singh Batra had no power or authority or right to appoint any person as guardian of her daughter as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act. Thus, the appointment of Respondent 3 as sale custodian and guardian of the minor by Surinder Singh Batra during the lifetime of the petitioner is a nullity in the eye of the law, inoperative and ineffective.

5. The third respondent Arminderjit Singh Batra, on the basis of the said Will, filed an application under Section 192 of the Succession Act before the District Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 for the custody of the minor child whereas Respondent 3 claimed guardianship by virtue of the Will dated 19-10-1996. The District Judge, Amritsar, by judgment dated 23-12-1997, dismissed the application of Respondent 3 filed under Section 192 of the Act holding that Respondent 3 was not competent to claim guardianship of the minor Simran Batra. However, this order was set aside by the High Court remanding it back for deciding it as per the provisions of Sections 193/194 of the Succession Act and parties were directed to appear before the District Court.

6. The District Court, while deciding the application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the petitioner, allowed interim custody to the petitioner and directed the child to be produced on 27-7-1998.

However, the child was not produced. The High Court directed the court concerned to dispose of the said petition finally as agreed but the same has not been decided and the matter is delayed by the respondents' resorting to dilatory tactics.

7. It is further submitted that in order to frustrate the judicial process and to succeed in their design, Respondent 3 in connivance with the other respondents took away baby Simran to the USA in February 2000 in a clandestine manner without disclosing her whereabouts, date of departure, place of living, etc. When the petit