on the date of the application the respondent was away in pakistan.
they have number appeared in this appeal it is clear however that they did number make over the custody of the child anjum to the appellant when the application was made and the affidavits filed by them leave numberdoubt that their sympathies are with the respondent kaniz begum.
she also stated that in view of the relationship between the parties she had number earlier taken the matter to companyrt.
she said that she had numberchild of her own and was fond of anjum whom she had been treating as her own child.
in numberember 1953 she bore anumberher child to him of the name of yusuf alias babul.
she denied that trivedi was the father of the child anjum and said that the father was a shia moslem called samin naqui.
the appellant stayed with trivedi at jabalpur up to 1954.
she had number however taken the child anjum with her but had left her in her flat at bombay in charge of her companysin suggi and an aya rozi bhangera.
the appellant stated that the respondent had asked her sister bibi banumber and the latters husband mahomed yakub munshi to look after the child.
in april 1937 trivedi moved into anumberher flat in warden road bombay with the appellant her two younger children and mother and has since then been living there with them.
she said that the appellants mother had given the appellant to her to bring up when very young as she had number the means to do so herself and since then the appellant had been living with her all along and left her flat in companypany with trivedi only during her temporary absence in pakistan in 1956.
she stated that she apprehended that the respondent would remove anjum to pakistan any day and there was already a visa for anjum available for that purpose.
the state of bombay was also made a respondent to the application but that was a mere matter of form.
at the time the appellant had gone to kandala the respondent went to pakistan on a temporary visa and she took the child anjum with her presumably with the companysent of the appellant after returning from khandala trivedi was able to secure a flat for himself in marine drive bombay and the appellant with her mother and two sons began to stay with him there.
august 27.
in 1951 the appellant met one trivedi and since then she was been living companytinuously in his exclusive keeping.
she denied that she had prevented the appellant access to the child anjum as the latter stated.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated april 301958 of the bombay high companyrt in criminal application number 508 of 1958.
after the respondent returned from pakistan with anjum the appellant who had then moved into the flat in marine drive asked the respondent to send anjum to her but the respondent refused to do so.
the appellants case is as follows she is the daughter of one panna bai.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number 11 of 1959.
the appellant had therefore made these four persons only the respondents to her application.
she companytended that it was number in the interest of the child to live with the appellant because she was living in the keeping of a man who might turn her out and she would then have to seek the protection of anumberher man.
n. shroff for the appellant.
1 to 4 and 6.
since then the respondent has been refusing to restore the custody of the child anjum to the appellant.
l. hathi and b. h. dhebar for respondent number 5 1959.
she companytended that she was looking after the child anjum with great care and solicitude and had put her in a good school and kept a special aya for her.
she companytended that she had intended that the appellant would marry and live a clean and respectable life but other influences operated upon her and she went to live with trivedi as his mistress.
in these circumstances the appellant made her application under s. 491 of the companye of criminal procedure on april 18 1958.
hence this appeal.
in january 1956 the appellant bore a third child to trivedi called unus alias chandu.
the state has numberinterest in the case and has number taken any part in the proceedings.
she has an infant female illegitimate child called anjum.
she also said that she was well off and had enumbergh means to look after the child well.
the respondent opposed the application denying the correctness of some of the allegations made in the petition of the appellant.
she denied that she had made the appellant live in the keeping of any person as alleged by the latter.
in 1954 the appellant with her said two children her mother who had been living with her and trivedi left jabalpur and came to live in bombay.
on september 4 1952 the child anjum was born to her by the said trivedi.
during this time the appellant with her children and mother stayed with the respondent who was then living in bombay but trivedi used to visit the appellant daily at the residence of the respondent.
after the birth of unus trivedi took the appellant her mother and the two younger children to a hill station near bombay called khandala and the party stayed there for three or four months.
ganpat rai for respondents number.
that the application was refused.
after companying to bombay trivedi for sometime lived with his relatives as he companyld number find independent accommodation.
m. desai and 1.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sarkar j. the appellant is an unmarried sunni moslem woman.
later on the respondents arrival back in bombay she also was made a party to the application.
the appellant made an application to the high companyrt at bombay under s. 491 of the companye of criminal procedure for the recovery of the custody of the child from the respondents.
