The petitioner is the husband of respondent unfortunate wife Smt.
The report of the Central Bureau of Investigation showed that minor Sandeep was held incommunicado at the instance of the present petitioner by Kum.
Amrawati Bharti.
After examining the rival companytentions, the learned Judge made an order that the present petitioner father do produce minor Sandeep Kumar in the Court on October 23, 1981.
In order to be doubly sure, the petitioner was called before the Court and was questioned and he made a statement on oath that he did number have minor Sandeep in his custody number did he know anything about his present whereabouts and he has number made any attempt to hold minor Sandeep incommunicado.
Amrawati Bharti was entitled to his custody.
1446, Sector III, Pushpa Vihar, New Delhi.
Indira, held the child incommunicado and told blatant falsehood to the Court.
Subsequently, when the wife approached Superintendent of Police, Etawah, the petitioner husband was taken into custody but he was released on bail on the same day after rejecting the application of the Investigation Officer for remand to police custody.
It is against this order of the High Court that this present petition for special leave is filed.
Amrawati Bharti and inflicted several injuries.
He was assured that he will enjoy all the powers of Police Officer carrying out search and also to have number bailable warrants and without interference from anyone pick up minor Sandeep wherever he is found and to produce minor Sandeep before this Court with his report.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court observed that in view of the fact that minor Sandeep was hardly aged about one, the mother Smt.
No attempt was made to trace minor Sandeep.
Then the case took a curious turn.
Indira, was hardly aged 20 years at the relevant time.
Ultimately, she told us that petitioner, is her husband and it would be an act of sacrilege on her part to ask us to punish him.
Amrawati Bharti frustrated by the apathy and dereliction of duty by the police in her capacity as mother of the minor Sandeep moved a petition for a writ of habeas companypus in the Allahabad High Court.
Let us recapitulate a few facts.
The wife lodged information of the occurrence at Police Station Kotwali Etawah around 5.30 P.M. on the day of the occurrence.
The apprehension was that the petitioner was telling a blat ant falsehood and is leading us and his learned companynsel on a garden path.
The officer in charge of the Police Station behaved, number unexpectedly in the usual manner and did number take action on the information of the offence lodged at the Police Station.
On November 8, 1982, interim stay granted by this Court was vacated and the Registry of this Court was directed to write a letter to the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation requesting him to trace minor Sandeep.
It was reiterated in the petition for special leave that minor Sandeep is number only number in the custody of the present petitioner but he had numberknowledge about his whereabouts.
The custody of minor Sandeep was for the time being handed over to respondent mother Smt.
She thus appeared to be an embodiment of the culture of tolerance of Indian womanhood.
The serious lapse on the part of the Police officer was that he did number care to enquire about the whereabouts of minor Sandeep.
The petitioner, the husband, is a low paid workman and yet he displayed companyduct of a male chauvinist.
When Sandeep was aged about one year, the petitioner husband beat Smt.
In response to the numberice of the writ petition the petitioner appeared and companytended that minor Sandeep was number in his physical custody number did he know anything about the whereabouts of minor Sandeep.
She made a clean breast of how she acted under the thumb of the petitioner.
On November 20, 1982, Shri O.P. Sharma, S.P., C.B.I, produced minor Sandeep in the Chamber of one of us Desai, J. Learned companynsel representing the parties respectively were present.
The respondent Smt.
She was thrown out of the house after depriving her of the custody of minor Sandeep.
But while granting stay, we had our serious reservations about the poser of the present petitioner.
Pursuant to the detailed order made by this Court on November 29, 1982 one Shri O.P. Chhatwal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Special Investigation Cell filed his detailed affidavit setting out therein how the present petitioner had kidnapped minor Sandeep, secreted him with his sister Kum.
The child was kidnapped and secreted from May 1981 and all throughout, the petitioner was in full knowledge of the fact and yet truth being number his forte, he took such liberty with the companyrt process that the maximum punishment companyld number do adequate justice to the cause.
A son Sandeep was born during the wedlock.
Subsequently, Smt.
A. Desai, J. Passage of time heals a festering sore and mollifies the sting caused by the criminal behaviour of the petitioner in this Court as well as in the High Court.
If this order would have been pronounced about six months back, the petitioner would have been safely lodged in Tihar Jail for his criminal misconduct in taking false oath, misleading a Senior learned companynsel like Mr. S.N. Kacker and polluting the fountain of justice.
Amrawati Bharti.
