IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

272 CRWP-5609-2025 (O&M)

Date of decision: 31.10.2025 Raj Kumari ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Anter Preet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, AAG, Punjab.

Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 6.

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of writ in the nature of habeas corpus for obtaining custody of her minor children, namely Yash Preet and Kalpana, who are aged about 10 years and 06 years, respectively, from respondents No. 4 to 6, who are their grandmother, uncle and aunt, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case as set up by the petitioner are that her marriage was solemnized with Narinder Kumar on 13.04.2012. Both of them were living happily together at village Meharban separately from respondents No. 4 to 6/private respondents. Two children, namely Yash Preet and Kalpana, were born out of the wedlock on 06.08.2014 and 05.01.2019, respectively. His husband, who was serving in Employees Provident Fund Office, Ludhiana, had unfortunately died on 31.05.2022 due to some ailments. Respondents No. 4 to 6, who are mother, brother and sister-in-law of her deceased husband, respectively, had evil eye over the service dues of her husband, which was paid to the petitioner by the department concerned. Even respondent No. 4 had filed a suit for declaring that they were entitled to receive service benefits of Narinder Kumar after his death, which was eventually paid to the petitioner. Subsequently, the private respondents have forcibly taken away the minor children of the petitioner with them on 15.09.2023 without informing the petitioner. When she tried to obtain the custody of the children, she was given beatings by them on 10.07.2023 and thrown out of the house. With regard to the said incident, the petitioner had even filed a complaint before the police. Respondent No. 4 is a widow. Respondent No. 5 is the younger brother of deceased Narinder Kumar, who is already married with respondent No. 6 and they are having a minor female child out their wedlock. The petitioner tried multiple times to get the custody of her children but to no avail. Her minor children are being deprived of natural motherly love and affection and are not being taken care of properly by the private respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the private respondents have forcibly taken the custody of the minor children from the petitioner and their act is not only illegal but also amounts to cruelty to the petitioner as well as children as they are of tender age and needed the care and company of their mother for their upbringing. While submitting that the private respondents are mistreating the minor children and not maintaining them properly, it is urged that a writ of habeas corpus be issued for release of the alleged detenues. To fortify his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the authorities cited as Gurmeet Kaur Batth vs. State of Punjab, 2009 (1) RCR (Criminal) 974, Jaswinder Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 891, Deepak Agnihotri vs. The Commissioner of Police and others, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 30, Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Chugh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2022 (1) RCR (Criminal) 95 and Gohar Begum vs. Suggi @ Nazima Begum and others, 1960 AIR (Supreme Court) 93

4. Status report has been filed by the respondent-State. Learned State counsel has submitted that on verification made by the police officials, it has been found that the minor children are residing happily with the private respondents and are studying in a school.

5. No reply has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 4 to 6. However, learned counsel appearing for these respondents have denied the allegations made by the petitioner. He