Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 2705 (ALL)

SHARDA v. STATE OF U. P.

2003-11-18

R.C.DEEPAK

body2003
R. C. DEEPAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner Smt. Sharda, widow of Yogendra Singh Bharti, daughter of Ratan Pal Singh, has filed this habeas corpus petition against the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in particular with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus against them (respondent nos. 4 and 5) commanding and directing them to produce and hand over her son Chinoo (corpus)before the Court, mainly on the ground inter alia, that she and her husband Yogendra Singh bharti could not live happily and peacefully due to bad behaviour and torture of the respondent no. 5 Smt. Ganeshwati, wife of respondent No. 5 Lekhram, who are her mother-in-law and father-in-law respectively, that her husband Yogendra Singh Bharti ultimately committed suicide/murder on 25. 5. 2003, that after receiving information regarding the suicide/ death of her husband she along with her father, child/son named above reached Amroha/j. P. Nagar from the house of her father where she was living with her son Chinoo, on 26. 5. 2003, for participating in the funeral of her husband, that she (petitioner) and her father were beaten by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, that her son Chinoo was kidnapped by respondent Nos. 4 and 5, that the life of her son chinoo is in danger and that she (petitioner) will suffer an irreparable loss and injury in the event of her son Chinoo not been handed over to her and also that Chinoo will be deprived of her love and affection, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have filed a joint counter-affidavit contradicting and controverting the allegations made by the petitioner against them and ascertaining therein inter alto that the life of Chinoo is not at all in danger, that the petitioner is a young lady and that the future of Chinoo will be doomed and ruined in the event of her marriage with some other person. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Sheetal Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. ( 3 ) THE petitioner Smt. Sharda was the wife and now the widow of Yogendra Singh Bharti, the respondent Nos. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Sheetal Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri H. C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the record. ( 3 ) THE petitioner Smt. Sharda was the wife and now the widow of Yogendra Singh Bharti, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 named Lekhram and Smt. Ganeshwati are father and mother respectively of Yogendra Singh Bharti and consequently father-in-law and mother-in-law of smt. Sharda, Chinoo is son born to her from Yogendra Singh Bharti. He is hardly 4 and 1/2 years of age. Yogendra Singh Bharti allegedly committed suicide or allegedly was murdered on 25. 5. 2003, Smt. Sharda Has been living with her parents at their residence at Meerut where her son has been presently living with his grandmother and grandfather (respondent Nos. 4 and 5)named above at their residence in the district J. P. Nagar. The above facts cannot, on the basis of the record, be said to be in dispute. ( 4 ) WHETHER Yogendra Singh Bharti committed suicide or he was murdered, who is/are responsible/accused in either case and whether Chinoo was kidnapped by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 or not, are such questions which cannot presently be taken into consideration for any purpose whatsoever in the present petition. ( 5 ) LETTERS filed and marked as Annexure-1 with the petition appear to be relevant, therefore, the annexure-1 is reproduced as under :. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . ( 6 ) THE above letters, if read together would ipso facto reveal that respondent No. 5 Smt. Ganeshwati is a termagant lady. She is cruel and quarrelsome. She thinks and acts ever ignobly and never lovely. Her husband Lekhram respondent No. 4 had become completely hapless, helpless and hopeless on account of her ignoble conduct and behaviour and had no honour, respect and dignity in his family or outside even in the life time of his son Yogendra Singh bharti. He had or has no control of any kind whatsoever over his wife Smt. Ganeshwati. This is probably the reason why he did not muster courage to say even a single word against what has been written in the letters marked as Annexure-1 against his wife in particular. He had or has no control of any kind whatsoever over his wife Smt. Ganeshwati. This is probably the reason why he did not muster courage to say even a single word against what has been written in the letters marked as Annexure-1 against his wife in particular. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, the questions are whether the respondent No. 5 Smt. Ganeshwati can be expected to mend her ways and turn out to be an ideal/well behaved lady specially after the sad death of her son Yogendra Singh Bharti and also at/in her ripe age, whether her husband Lekhram can similarly be expected to have his control in any manner whatsoever over her at this age and stage and whether they (Smt. Ganeshwati and Lekhram) can be one in ideal conduct, quality and performance for giving the desired love and affection to Chinoo. These questions admit of no other answer than those in the negative. Chinoo is hardly 4 and 1/2 years of age as mentioned earlier. Smt. Sharda is his mother. Commonly speaking mother is bigger/greater than the earth and father is higher than the sky, unfortunately the father Yogendra Singh Bharti already left for heavenly abode. He has, therefore, become fatherless. Love and affection of the mother cannot be compared with that of any other human being, as slumber captures the infants spirit, his mother places him in the bed and kisses his eyes with quivering lips, who will do so in the instant case particularly in view of the facts and circumstances involved therein. The answer to this posed question is none else than the petitioner Smt. Sharda herself. Moreover he is her present consolation and future hope because her husband is no more. In this very connection something more may be mentioned as under for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner and respondent Nos. The answer to this posed question is none else than the petitioner Smt. Sharda herself. Moreover he is her present consolation and future hope because her husband is no more. In this very connection something more may be mentioned as under for redressal of the grievances of the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 following the death of Yogendra Singh Bharti ; "what Death taken away no Man can restore ; what Heaven has blessed no Man can punish ; what Love has joined no Man can divide ; what Eternity has build no Man can alter ;" ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the pros and cons of the case and listening to the dictates of my conscience, I arrive at the irresistible conclusion that the petitioner Smt. Sharda is entitled in all respects to her son Chinoo who should be handed over to her. Chinoo has been produced and identified and recognised by her mother Smt. Sharda herself. He is, therefore, handed over to Smt. Sharda in the Court itself. He will live with his mother Smt. Sharda until he attains the age of majority. Thereafter he will be free to live wherever he likes. ( 9 ) THE court officer is directed to provide adequate security to enable Smt. Sharda to take her son chinoo to her residence. ( 10 ) THE petition stands disposed of accordingly. .