The appellant applied to the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh for a writ of habeas companypus alleging that her minor son Vaibhav Datta was being detained by the respondents 1 to 3.
Under orders of the Court respondents shifted over to Modi Nagar and are prepared to stay on at Modi Nagar.
3 is number yet married and stays with her parents.
Respondent No.
Notice was issued on the special leave petition and respondents appeared before this Court.
The High Court summarily dismissed the petition by adding Krishanlal Datta respondent No.
Amar Jyoti was in service and upon his death certain monies were payable from the employer.
The respondent companyple had a son Amar Jyoti Datta who was married to the appellant in February, 1985 died in February, 1986.
Several orders were made by this Court with a view to bringing about a settlement between the parties.
1 shall be entitled to take him from the appellant and keep him in the companypany of the respondents at his residence for the whole of Saturday and till 6.00 p.m. on Sunday following and return the child to the mother by 6.00 p.m. on Sunday so that the mother takes over the custody of the child and make him ready for going to school next morning Parties have agreed that this arrangement shall companytinue until either of them goes for an appropriate guardianship proceeding and gets a declaration.
Vaibhav shall live with his mother but during every week end that is Saturday and Sunday the respondent No.
1 shall be entitled to receive the interest accruing on the Fixed Deposit Receipts in the name of the minor child Vaibhav Datta as long as the minor child is in his legal custody.
We direct that Vaibhav shall companytinue to study in the said school and neither party would be permitted to withdraw him without permission of the Court.
It is number necessary to refer to the other facts pleaded by the parties.
Vaibhav is the son born to Mr. Amar Jyoti Datta and Poonam the appellant.
That has, however, number worked out successfully and the matter has number to be finally disposed of on merit.
1 was in Defence Service and after retirement settled down at Karnal in Haryana State, where he has his own house.
Vaibhav has been put into a local school at Modi Nagar where the appellant is a teacher.
Special leave granted.
Respondent No.
3 is the daughter of respondent No.
Respondent No.
The appellants allegation that she has been thrown out of the family house about six months after the death of her husband when disputes arose between the two parties over the entitlement to the money payable upon Amar Jyotis death has been denied.
Respondent No.
2, Mrs. Mohini Datta is the wife of Shri Krishanlal Datta, respondent No.
