JUDGMENT
M.N. Rao, J.
1. One K.V.R. Choudhary, Resident of Satrampadu, Eluru, West Godavari District, has filed this application seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the Inspector of Police, Punjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad and R. Narasaiah Naidu, resident of Begumpet, Hyderabad, to produce his niece-daughter of his deceased sister-before this Court and hand over her custody to any near relative. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that the petitioner’s sister, Kanaka Durga Vani, was married to the second respondent on 14-8-1983 and a female child was born to them in October, 1985, and the girl was named Ramya by the parents. Kanaka Durga Vani died in suspicious circumstances on 27-3-1989 and when the baby, Ramya, was staying with him at Eluru, she was taken away in 1993 by the second respondent, her father, who got her admitted in a school at Hyderabad. One Srinivasa Rao, a relation of the petitioner, happened to visit Hyderabad and when he went to the house of the second respondent on 10-1-1996, he saw the pitiable condition of the girl: She was badly beaten-up and was burnt on face, arms, legs and throat and when he asked respondent No. 2 he gave evasive and contradictory replies. On coming to know of this, the petitioner came to Hyderabad and when he asked the second respondent about the condition of the girl, he got only evasive replies and at that time the second respondent was in a drunken state. Apprehensive of the safety of the life of the girl, Ramya, this writ petition was filed by him. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the second respondent, after death of the first wife, has contracted a second marriage. He was earlier working in the Army and after retirement, he was again appointed as a driver in the Military Engineering Service.
2. In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, while denying the allegation of the death of his first wife under suspicious circumstances, it is averred that he transferred two house-sites in the name of his daughter and also transferred fixed deposit receipt worth Rs. 10,000/- lying in the name of his deceased wife in favour of the minor daughter-Ramya. He asserted that he has great affection for his daughter and as she was not regular in attending the school and failed in all subjects in the 7th class half-yearly examination and as his friends complained that his daughter was taking out money from their pockets, all his attempts to set right her conduct proved in vain and so “vexed with her rude behaviour, I wanted to mark on her hands but unfortunately, in wriggling, the hot ‘atlakada’ touched her face. I never intended to punish her seriously, but if I do not set right her conduct, I will be presenting a criminal to the society”. The other details are not very relevant except the averment that he transferred all the property in favour of his daughter and he is getting only Rs. 950/- monthly pension and his second wife Smt. Vana Kumari will complete her nursing training this year i.e., 1996.
3. In the reply affidavit, several details are given as to how the properties came to be acquired by the second respondent, which are not very necessary for proper disposal of this writ petition.
4. We recorded the statement of the minor girl-Ramya – in the chambers in the presence of a lady Advocate. The girl emphatically stated:
“I know Sri K.V.R. Choudhary. He is my maternal uncle. I stayed with him (maternal uncle) in his house until I completed my third standard. I like my maternal uncle. I want to stay with him. My father beats me. My step-mother is working in Guntur. Occasionally she comes to Hyderabad to my father (The girl looks frightened. She is not able to give answers to the questions asked by us. She shows injuries on the neck and on the fore arm. There are two injuries on the neck. They look like burn injuries). My father caused these injuries with a red hot ‘Atlakada’ (iron rod). I want to go and stay with my maternal uncle Sri K.V. R. Choudhary. I was, brought here by my father. I want to go to my maternal uncle’s place.”
We have then entrusted the custody of the minor to the petitioner herein. After some time, we again summoned the minor girl to find out whether she was happy living with her maternal uncle and maternal grand-mother. She stated that she is very happy staying with them. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed evidence before us to show that the minor girl-Ramya – has been admitted by his client in. Giddhartha Residential School at Eluru, which she will be attending as a day scholar, by paying Rs. 860/- towards admission fee.
5. We are satisfied, after very carefully examining the entire facts and circumstances that the future of the minor girl would be very bleak if she were to be permitted to stay with her father. The type of torture inflicted by the father on the minor girl is something which no ordinary person with any modicum affection to his children would ever dream of doing. Taking into consideration the future and well-being of the minor, we direct that she should be in the custody of the petitioner and that the petitioner shall take due care to provide for her education and bring her up and bestow proper love and affection. If the minor girl stays with her maternal uncle, she is bound to feel more happy because her maternal grand-mother is taking care of her.
6. The second respondent, the father of the girl, has since married and the second wife will be completing this year her course as a nurse. The second respondent is getting Rs. 1,000/- by way of monthly pension from the Army and he is at present working as a driver. There is some controversy as to his actual present income. According to Sri Jagadish, learned counsel for the petitioner, the monthly income of the second respondent as a driver is Rs. 3,000/-, besides the pension of Rs. 1,000/- which he is getting from the Army. Sri Jaganmohan Reddy, learned counsel for the second respondent, while disputing this has asserted that the monthly salary of the second respondent as a driver is only Rs. 1,000/- and his employer is a private individual. No evidence, whatsoever, in this regard is placed before us by Sri Jaganmohan Reddy despite the fact that several times, this case was adjourned with a view to enabling him to produce evidence in this behalf. We must also take note of the fact that the second respondent has no children by the second wife. Taking all these aspects into consideration, we are of the view that the second respondent should pay every month Rs. 500/- for the maintenance of the minor girl, Ramya, and this amount he shall send by Way of a draft drawn in the name of the petitioner on or before 10th of every month. The first payment shall be made before 10th of July, 1996.
7. Sri Jaganmohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the second respondent, says that after December, 1996, the second respondent is likely to lose his present employment, in which case, it may not be possible for him to make arrangements for remitting Rs. 500/- per month towards the maintenance of his daughter. If really the second respondent is in financial difficulties, it is needless to mention, he is at liberty to move this Court for appropriate orders. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.
