The husband was trapped by the Berkshire Police who got the scent that he was negotiating with a hitman to have the wife run over by a car.
The husband was companyvicted and sentenced to a term of three years for that offence.
By the said order, the husband was directed to hand over the custody of the minor boy to the wife or her agent forthwith.
The wife came to India in April 1983.
On the same date, the wife obtained an order under section 41 of the Supreme Court Act, 1981 under which the boy became the Ward of the Court with effect from that date.
On January 31, 1983, while the wife was away at work, the husband removed the boy from England and brought him to India.
The husband was released on probation on February 4, 1982.
The wife then went back to England to resume her work and obtained the order dated July 22, 1983 to which we have already referred.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 26th August, 1983 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Cr.
She asked for the custody of her son, companytending that he was in the illegal custody of the respondents.
That order was companyfirmed on July 22, 1983 by Mrs. Justice Booth of the High Court of Justice Family Division .
The period of probation expired on December 24, 1982.
Soon after the marriage they left for England, where a boy named Pritpal Singh was born to them on October 24, 1976.
She then filed the present writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, asking for the production and custody of her minor son.
Within a short period after the birth of the boy, the relationship between the spouses came under a strain resulting in a serious episode.
Ironically, it was the wife who intervened and succeeded in obtaining a probation order for the man who had attempted to procure her murder.
She came back to India once again, this time armed with the aforesaid order of the English High Court.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Writ Petition No.
392 of 1983.
Puran Chand, Mrs. Naresh Bakshi and Miss Kailash Mehta for the Respondents The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD C. J., The appellant, Surinder kaur Sandhu, is the wife of respondent 1, Harbax Singh Sandhu.
183 of 1984.
M. Nayar and Vijay Jhani for the Appellant.
Section 97 authorises the Magistrate to direct a search to be made for persons wrongfully companyfined and, on their being found, to be produced in the Court in order to facilitate the passing of such order as the circumstances of the case may require.
Respondent 2 is the father of respondent 1 Appellant and respondent 1 were married in 1975 at Bodni Kalan, District Faridkot, Punjab, according to Sikh rites.
