JUDGMENT

1. This matter was taken up in pre-lunch session when minor child Purab Singh Rathore was not present in the Court but his father respondent No.2 Dileep Singh Rathore was present, who was directed to produce the minor child at 02.00 PM.

2. Both appellant-mother Shikha Rathore and respondent-father Dileep Singh Rathore are present in Court. Master Purab Singh Rathore is also present in Court.

3. This habeas corpus petition has been filed by Shikha Rathore inter alia with the prayer that respondent No.3, the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur and respondent No.4, SHO, Police Station Bank Park, Jaipur be directed to produce corpus, namely Purab Singh Rathore, aged 13 years before this Court and due and deserving justice may also be imparted to her in terms of the law.

4. As per the averments made in the habeas corpus petition, the petitioner married the respondent No.2 on 22.03.2006 as per Hindu Customs and Rites. A male child was born out of this wedlock, namely Purab Singh Rathore, on 27.05.2007. The petitioner alleged that ever since marriage she was regularly teased and tortured by her husband not only post-marriage but after the birth of child also for insufficient dowry. The husband-respondent No.2 has no love and affection either for the petitioner or for his minor son, who is presently studying in Class-VII as resident student in Nimawat Public School, Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar. A photocopy of the mark-sheet of Class-VI of the child has been annexed with the petition as Annexure-2.

5. It is further alleged that petitioner has suffered a lot at the hands of respondent No.2 and when the torture and suffering became unbearable, the petitioner was constrained to withdraw from the company of the respondent No.2 on 05.07.2019 against her wishes and since then she is residing at her parents house at Jaipur. It is further stated that respondent No.2 was not extending any kind of pecuniary or other support for the study of the minor child and the petitioner anyhow was managing the entire expenses by borrowing money from her parents and also pledging her jewellery with the Muthoot Finance, Jaipur.

6. Mr. Suresh Sahni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-wife submits that on the eve of Diwali festival, minor child Purab Singh Rathore was having school holidays from 20.10.2019 to 09.11.2019. The petitioner by road went to the school to pick up the minor child on 19.10.2019 and brought him to Jaipur. Since then the child was staying with the petitioner at her parental house. It is further submitted that on 22.10.2019 when the petitioner along with her minor son, her elder sister, sister's daughter and her father had gone to pay obeisance at the temple Ghat-Ke-Balaji, situated at Galta Road, Jaipur, respondent No.2 in the absence of petitioner visited their house and enquired from her mother about the petitioner and her minor son. In response her mother replied that petitioner along with her minor son and others have gone to the aforesaid temple, upon which respondent No.2 became very desperate and aggressive saying that he right now wanted the custody of my son and immediately proceeded to Ghat-Ke-Balaji temple. On reaching the temple, respondent No.2 asked for immediate custody of the minor son, to which the petitioner declined. Her father also pleaded that he cannot take law in his hands, after which the respondent No.2 lost his cool and not only manhandled the petitioner but also her minor son and forcibly took away Purab Singh Rathore from the custody of the petitioner and abducted him, who at that time was weeping inconsolably and told respondent No.2 in explicit and unambiguous words that at present he does not wish to part company with the petitioner. Despite this, the respondent No.2 did not pay any heed to the imploring of minor son and others and took him away forcibly. Mr. Suresh Sahni in support of his arguments has relied on judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. (Mrs.) Veena Kapoor Vs