NIRMALJIT KAUR versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 06-12-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NIRMALJIT KAUR 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 6, 2005 
B 
[RUMA PAL AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 32-Writ petition-Habeas Corpus petition-Production of minor 
C child before Court-Petitioner's husband died intestate leaving behind the 
petitioner and her minor child as his legal heirs~Petitioner claimed that she 
being the widow was entitled to act as a natural guardian of her minor 
legitimate child-The petitioner's daughter was forcibly taken away from her 
· on the date of death of her husband by her husband's brothers and sisters-
D They also turned out the petitioner from her matrimonial home-DNA test 
was performed on the petitioner and the child produced before Supreme 
Court-It was proved that the petitioner was not the biological mother of the 
child produced-The brothers and sisters of the petitioner's husband had 
also tried to create false evidence about loss of passports of the minor child 
and deliberately made a false statement before Supreme Court-Held: A 
E direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus issued to produce the real child 
in Supreme Court enabling the petitioner to have the custody being the 
natural mother-The brothers and sisters of the petitioner's husband are 
guilty of contempt of court-A fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed on each-Contempt 
of Courts Act, 1971, S. 2(b). 
F 
The petitioner's husband died intestate leaving behind the petitioner and 
her minor daughter as his only legal heirs. The petitioner's consistent stand 
was that she being the widow was entitled to act as a natural guardian of her 
minor legitimate daughter by reason of the fact that the father of the child 
was dead. It was also her case that the respondents forcibly took away her 
G daughter on the date of death of her husband. The petitioner was turned out 
of her matrimonial house by the respondents and since then she had been 
living with her relatives. Hence, the petitioner filed the present writ petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for production of the minor child 
in this Court. 
514 
-
' 
I 
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. ST ATE OF PUNJAB 
515 
It was the case of the respondents that the minor child was living with A 
respondent No. 3 since her birth because of the indifferent attitude of the 
petitioner towards the minor child right from the beginning. 
As directed by this Court, DNA test was performed on the petitioner 
and the child produced by the respondent in this Court. The DNA test 
conclusively proved that the petitioner was not the-biological mother of the B 
minor child produced before this Court. The respondents also had tried to 
create false evidence of loss. of passports of the minor child and deliberately 
made a false statement before this Court. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is the consistent stand of the petitioner that she being the 
widow is entitled to act as a natural guardian of the minor legitimate daughter 
by reason of the fact that the father of the child is dead. She is entitled to 
exercise all the rights of a natural guardian of the minor. It is also her case 
c 
. that the respondents in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to grab the 
property of the petitioner's husband caused her daughter to disappear without D 
the permission of the Court. The petitioner has not been allowed to meet her 
child despite various requests made by the petitioner. It is also now proved by 
the DNA test that the child produced before the Court is not her real daughter. 
(525-F-G-H] 
2. It has been stated by respondent Nos. 2-5 that the minor child was E 
living with respondent No. 3 almost since her birth, which according to them, 
was so because of the indifferent attitude of the petitioner towards the minor 
child right from the beginning. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband 
died intestate and on the date of death respondent Nos. 2-S forcibly took away 
the minor child from the petitioner with evil design. It is also her case that 
the respondents have fabricated a Will and registered the same after the death F 
of the testator. When the child produced before the Court is not the child of 
the petitioner which is now proved by the DNA test it is the duty of respondents 
2-5 to produce the child which was forcibly taken by them on the date of the 
death of her husband. Respondents Nos. 2-5 have come to Court with unclean 
hands and with a view to grabbing the property of the late husband of the G 
petiti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.