HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision: 07.02.2025 ****

Sanjeev Kumar ... Petitioner VS.

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents ****

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL ****

Present: Mr. Kshitiz Goel, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. BS Virk, Sr.DAG Haryana Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for respondents No.4 to 8 ****

Sandeep Moudgil , J. (Oral)

(1). This writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus for release the detenue, namely, Vanshika @ Vaidehi daughter of the petitioner-

Sanjeev Kumar who has been illegally detained by the private respondents.

Factual Backdrop (2). The petitioner had married Poonam – daughter of respondents No.4 & 5 on 02.10.2016. She committed suicide soon after giving birth to a girl child, namely, the detenue, on 05.07.2017 leading to registration of FIR No.279 dated 17.07.2017 at the instance of respondents No.4 to 8, against the petitioner and his family members under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 IPC. Soon thereafter, the petitioner was taken into custody and during this period, the detenue was taken in the custody of respondents No.4 to 8. While respondent No.4 & 5 are the maternal grandparents, respondents No.6 to 7 are the maternal aunts (mausi) of the detenue-minor girl Vanshika @ Vaidehi.

(3). In the said criminal case, the petitioner was put to trial. However, he was acquitted vide judgment dated 04.02.2019. Immediately, after his release from jail, the petitioner pleaded the respondents No.4 to 8 to return the custody of his child (detenue) but they refused to do so.

(4). Resultantly, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the police followed by a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians & Wards Act, 1890 (in short, the 1890 Act) before the Family Court at Faridabad, on 03.08.2019, against the private respondents seeking custody of the detenue being her natural guardian – father.

(5). The petition under Section 25 of the 1890 Act filed by the petitioner was allowed and vide order dated 12.12.2024, the Family Court, Faridabad directed the private respondents to hand over the custody of the minor child (detenue) to the petitioner/father within one month from the passing of the judgment giving visitation rights to the respondents and Ms.

Rajni (mausi of minor child) to meet twice a month for three hours.

Contention of the petitioner (6). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 12.01.2025, when the petitioner approached the private respondents requesting them to hand over his child in compliance to the judgment passed by the Family Court, they flatly refused to give the custody of the detenue on the ground that since the child is residing with them since years, therefore, they will not hand over the child to his father.

(7). It is vehemently urged that even after acquittal in the false case lodged at the instance of private respondents and facing trial and custody for over almost one year, the petitioner could not have custody of his child for a period of 7 long years despite the fact that he is the natural guardian of his daughter/detenue. He further submits that the Family Court itself has observed in its judgment that the child is not being brought up in a neutral atmosphere and that she has been told that that she has no father at all thereby acknowledging the fact that the intention of respondents No.4 and 5 is to poison the minor child’s mind against her father.

(8). Further, it is argued that the private respondents, in the school records of her daughter, have deliberately shown that the father of the detenue is Mahaveer Singh and mother is Sulekha and changed the name of the minor child of the petitioner from Vanshika to Vaidehi. He exhorted that the act and conduct on the part of respondents No.4 to 8 is extremely cruel inasmuch as the petitioner is being blamed for causing the death of his wife which has been disapproved on merits by the trial court vide judgment dated

0