MST. MANZOORAN BEGUM Versus SWAR KHAN
ORDER
Mst. Manzooran Begum petitioner seeks recovery of her daughter Mst. Sumaira from what she calls unlawful custody of latter's husband, Swar Khan, respondent.
2. Faiz Ali Shah, A.S.I. is in attendance and states that it has not been possible for him to recover the lady and produce her in the Court. On the previous date, Zafar Iqbal, A.S.I. had appeared and submitted a report, endorsed by the then S.H.O., Zawar Hussain, inspector, that Swar Khan with his wife had gone away to Karachi. To the same effect is the latest report. The village people, the Chaukidar and the Lambardar, in particular, have furnished the information that the respondent had left the village sometime ago, his house is locked, and they are not aware of his present abode.
3. This is the second time that the police has reported failure in effecting recovery of the alleged detenue. This being the position, it would be only an exercise in futility, if it is insisted that efforts must continue to be made for the recovery, through the police or the Court bailiff.
4. Sumaira is stated to be in wrongful detention of the respondent, who is no other person, but her husband, and there is no allegation that he had abducted her away or married her against her volition or without approval of her parents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent is holding back his wife, much against her wishes, not allowing her parents to meet her, and maintains that this must be taken to be an unlawful custody. The assertion is indeed open to serious exception.
If the petitioner has gone susceptible about the intentions of her son- in-law, on no tangible or concrete premises, one may with equal or added amount of suscepticism say that her own move may well be wholly ill- intentioned or motivated, and she herself may be playing an ulterior or a mischievous role, with a view to persuade or pressurise her daughter to leave her husband, so shortly after the marriage, performed on 7-4-1993, in order to grab the enormous amount, which the husband, who is a teen-ager, had, ostensibly in a stupid way, agreed to pay as dower money, besides Rs.1,000 as monthly maintenance allowance, and the young man is now fluttering in helplessness and moving with, his wife from place to place, in sheer desperation, in a bid to ward off or guard against the hazards jeopardizing his matrimonial career and for protecting his peace of mind and pleasures of family life. Well, if that is the situation, and I have a well-entrenched impression, it is like that, the wife's parents even ought not to be permitted to act in a manner so as to meddle with the marital affairs of their daughter and erode or imperil her equation with her husband, thus disturbing, instead of subscribing to, the smooth-sailing of the matrimony, and causing to the couple, or at least one of them, untold agony and torture.
6. Habeas corpus petition, in the circumstances of the case, would verily be incompetent. The petitioner may invoke any other remedy available to her under the law, for tracing out her daughter or ascertaining her hereabouts, with a view to have access to her, if actually she entertains the apprehension that the daughter might have been eliminated by her husband. She may get a criminal case registered against the respondent. But there is no real basis, no justiciable ground for raising the plea that she is in illegal custody of her husband (of whom admittedly she is the legally-wedded wife), and no valid warrant for the prayer that she be set at liberty, following her recovery. The petition is not proceedable, and is also manifestly misconceived. It is accordingly dismissed.
N.H.O./M-1289/L Petition dismissed.