Holding

The petitioner is the natural mother and legal guardian of the child, and the respondents must produce the real child; their conduct constitutes contempt of court.

Summary

The widow Nirmaljit Kaur filed a writ petition under Article 32 seeking production of her minor daughter, alleging that the husband's siblings forcibly took the child after his death and concealed her whereabouts. The respondents claimed the child had lived with them since birth and produced a passport, later asserting it was lost, while also presenting a purported will appointing a sibling as guardian. The Supreme Court ordered DNA testing, which proved the child before the Court was not the petitioner’s biological daughter, confirming the real child remained with the respondents. The Court held that the petitioner, as natural mother and legal guardian, is entitled to have her child produced, and that the respondents' false statements and obstruction amounted to contempt of court. Consequently, a habeas corpus direction was issued to produce the child and each respondent was fined Rs.2,000 for contempt.

Issues considered

The petitioner’s right as natural mother and widow to obtain custody and production of her minor child under Article 32.
The validity of the will purportedly executed by the deceased husband and its effect on guardianship under the Indian Succession Act and Guardians and Wards Act.
The admissibility and effect of DNA testing to establish maternity.
Whether the respondents’ concealment of the child, false passport statements and refusal to comply constitute contempt of court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The appropriate remedy and penalties for contempt.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971s. Section 2(b)
Guardians and Wards Acts. Section 25
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Acts. Section 9
Indian Succession Acts. Section 192, s. Section 193, s. Section 194
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. Section 63

Subjects

habeas corpuscustody of minorDNA testingcontempt of courtguardianshipwill validityproperty disputepassport fraud

Judgment

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 ofminor
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. STATE 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
c
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
. 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
petitioner. (525-H; 526-A-B-C)
3. It is thus clear that the minor child of the petitioner is in the custody
of respondent Nos. 2-5. It is also proved by the DNA test that the child produced
before the Court is not the child of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondents
are bound to produce the real child of the petitioner before this Court. H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Therefore, a direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus if issued directing
respondent Nos. 2-5 to produce the minor child - daughter of the petitioner in.
this Court enabling the petitioner to have the custody being the natural mother.
(528-E-FJ

4. While the direction was issued by this Court to produce the passport,
B the counsel made a statement at the next hearing that the passport had been
lost When the Court directe~ the respondents to place on record the details
of the passport etc. by an affidavit, the respondents filed an affidavit expressing
deep regret about the grave mistake and produced the passport in Court Thus,
it is seen that the earlier stand taken by the respondents that the original
passport has been lost and the FIR has been registered to that effect stands
C falsified with the production of these passports and by the subsequent affidavit
The respondents have also filed an affidavit tendering their unqualified apology
for this grievous mistake that has occurred. The affidavits are not genuine
and bona fide. The respondents have come to this Court with unclean hands
and with a false case. A perusal of the entire proceedings in this Court an_d
D the proceedings pending before the other courts would only go to show the
respondents' evil desire to grab the property and to make the life of the
petitioner - a widow with a girl c!lild miserable. The result of the DNA test is
now crystal clear that the child produced before this court is not the real
child of the petitioner and that the petitioner's real child is in the custody of
the respondent Nos. 2-5 elsewhere. Several deliberate attempts made by the
E respondents were falsified by their own conduct in filing affidavits and also
the production of the passports in this Court. Respondent Nos. 2-5 are guilty
of contempt of this Court and, therefore, they are liable for punishment for
their proved misconduct They have committed the contempt knowingly and
that it is attributable to the neglect on their part. Respondents 3 and 5 have
F not so far appeared before this Court under one pretext or the other. ·
Respondent Nos. 2-5 are liable to punishment for their proved disobedience
of the order. A fine of Rs. 2,000 each is imp<ised on them to be deposited within
three days from the date of this judgment failing which the respondents shall
be punished with simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
(528-H; 529-A-B-q
G
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.) No. I IO of
2003.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
WITH
H C.P.(Crl.) No. 1 of2005.
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 517
H.M. Singh, Anil Hooda, Ms. Shabana Saifi and Kaushal Yadav for the A
Petitioner.

Manoj Swarup, Neeraj Shanna, R.K. Rathore, Addi.Advocate General for
Punjab, M.K. Verma and Bimal Roy Jad for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. The case of the petitioner is as follows:-

The petitioner - Nirmaljit Kaur got married to Surinder Singh Batra as
per Sikh rites and out of the wedlock a female baby Simran was born ·on
16.02.1992. Respondent No.2 - Gurubachan Singh Batra is the brother of C
Surinder Singh Batra. Respondent No.4 - Harbans Kaur is his wife. Respondent
No.3 -Arminderjit Singh Batra is the nephew ofSurinder Singh Batra whereas
Respendent No.5 - Ranjita Kaur is the wife of Respondent No.3 - Arminderjit
Singh Balra.

According to the petitioner, Surinder Singh Batra died intestate leaving D
behind the petitioner and baby Simran as his only legal heirs. On 23.02.1997,
the respondent Nos. 2-5 and 3 other sisters of Surinder Singh Batra and
sisters of respondent No.3 forcibly took away baby Simran from the petitioner
with ill design. The petitioner was turned out of her matrimonial house by
them and since then she has been living with her relatives. E
It is alleged that the respondents in order to divest the petitioner of her
legitimate right to succeed to the estate of her late husband fabricated a Will
dated 19.10 .1996 purported to have been executed by her husband. The two
witnesses to the Will are Joginder Singh and one J.S. Batra (since died). The
Will was got registered on 31.03.1997 after the death of the petitioner's F
husband (died on 23.02.1997) without notice to the petitioner. The alleged Will
named Arminderjit Singh as the guardian of the child Simran on the ground
that the testator's wife failed to take care of her. According to the petitioner,
the Will does not bear the signatures of her husband and the Will falls to the
ground for want of compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 63 G
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. as the Will was not attested by the two
witnesses each of whom had seen the testator signing the Will in their
presence. Each of the witnesses has not signed the Will in presence of the
testator, though it was signed by two witnesses. This apart, Surinder Singh
Batra had no power or authority or right to appoint any person as guardian
of her daughter as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Hindu Minority and H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Guardianship Act. Thus, the appointment of respondent No.3 as sole custodian
and guardian of minor by Surinder Singh Batra during the lifetime of the
petitioner is a nullity in the eyes of law, inoperative and ineffective.

The third respondent - Anninderjit Singh Batra, on the basis of the said
Will, filed an application under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act
B before the District Judge, Amritsar. The petitioner filed an application under
Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act for the custody of the minor• child
whereas the respondent No.3 claimed guardianship by virtue of the Will dated
19.10.1996. The District Judge, Amritsar, by judgment d~ted 23.12.1997,
dismissed the application of respondent No.3 filed under Section 192 of the
C Act holding respondent No.3 was not competent to claim guardianship of the
minor Simran Batra. However, this order was set aside by the High Court
remanding it back for deciding it as per provisions of Section 193/194 of the
Indian Succession Act and parties were directed to appear before the District
Court.

D The District Comt, while deciding the application under Section 25 of
the Guardians and Wards Act filed by the petitioner, allowed interim custody
to the petitioner and directed the child to be produced on 27.07.1998. However,
the child was not produced. The High Court directed the Court concerned to
dispose of the said petition finally as agreed but the same has not been
decided and the matter is delayed by the respondents resorting to dilatory
E tactics.

It is further submitted that in order to frustrate the judicial process and
to succeed in their design, respondent No.3 in connivance with the other
respondents took away baby Simran to U.S.A. in February, 2000 in clandestine
F manner without disclosing her whereabouts, date of departure, place of living
etc. When the petitioner appeared in the Court of Guardian Judge, Amritsar
for the custody of the child, respondent No.2 threatened the petitioner with
dire consequences if she did not stop pursuing the case and to forget about
the child and the property. The petitioner, therefore, filed a transfer petition
before this Court for transfer of Guardian Case No.80/97 from Amritsar to
G Delhi, which was allowed by this Court and the case has been transferred to
Faridabad. However, till date matter has not been assigned to any competent
Court having jurisdiction to decide. The petitioner also sought transfer of the
suit for partition filed by her and an application under Section 192 of the
Succession Act filed by respondent No.3. This Court gave liberty to the
H petitioner to approach the High Court.
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 519
As already stated, it is the petitioner's case that the child was taken to A
U.S.A. by respondent No.3 without the permission of the Court and that the
petitioner has not been allowed to meet her child despite various requests
being made by the petitioner. The petitioner has bona fide and genuine
apprehension that the child may have been made to disappear by the
respondents or liquidated by the responc'<!nts. It is pertinent to notice· that B
the respondent No.2 acting as Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.3
filed his affidavit on 04.04.2003 by way of evidence before this Court. After
this affidavit, the petitioner tried to meet her daughter but respondents did
not allow but concealed the child. It is thus clear that the baby Simran was
sent to U.S.A. without her knowledge and order of the Court in a clandestine
manner to conceal her whereabouts. It is see~ from' the statements made by C
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 that the child was abandoned 7/8 days after birth
and baby has been living with them from almost inception of birth. It is
apparent that the respondent succeeded in their nefarious design and caused
the daughter of the petitioner disappear.

The whereabouts of the baby Simran is not known from February, 2000. D
The petitioner being the natural mother and guardian of the baby is legally
entitled to the production and custody of the child and to meet her and
respondents are bound to do the needful. According to the petitioner, the
identity of the baby presently with respondents as claimed to be Simran can
be got established through DNA test only and that there is no other means E
or mode in establishing the identity and to handover the custody to the
petitioner after the test.

Thus, the petitioner filed the above writ petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution oflndia for production of baby Simran, daughter of the petitioner
in this Court with the following prayer: F
(a) issue appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of habeas
corpus, directing the respondents to produce baby Simran,
daughter of the petitioner in body in this Hon'ble Court, enabling
the petitioner to meet her being the natural mother.

(b) issue appropriate writ, order or direction to respondents to disclose G
the whereabouts of baby Simran, .daughter of the petitioner and
she be produced in the Hon'ble Court and DNA test be conducted
to affirm and ascertain the correct identity of baby Simran being
the daughter of the petitioner and ~ustody of the child be given
to the petitioner. H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A (c) pass such order or further order(s) and grant any other appropriate
relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.

The writ petition was opposed by respondent Nos. 2-5. They filed a
common counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that minor
B ~imran had gone to America for sometime during February, 2v00 to see
respondent Nos. 3 and 5 who are residing in America since sometime for
treatment of their son and that minor Simran is hale and healthy and she was
studying Middle Study High School, Amritsar which is clear from the order
passed by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 3134/98 and that she is
C presently studying in Class VI in Amritsar Public School. They produced
copy of the application for registration for admission and copy of the certificate
dated I0.09.2003 issued by the principal and photographs of Simran Batra as
Annexure-R5. They denied allegation that baby Simran was forcibly taken
away from the petitioner on 23.02.1997 and further submitted that minor
Simran was living with respondent No.3 almost since her birth which was so
D because of the indifferent attitude of the petitioner towards minor Simran right
from the beginning. It is submitted though tpe minor was produced in the
Court on 21.05.1998, 27,08.1998 and 25.09.1998 under the orders of the Court,
the minor was not willing to join the petitioner and the child was not willing
to go with her. There is no bar to the minor visiting or staying in America
keeping in view her welfare not particularly when standard of education is
E much higher than this place. Therefore, it is submitted that no ground is made
out to produce the minor in Court and that the application is misconceived
and merits dismissal with costs. Respondent No.3 had also stated that he had
taken the minor child Simran to U.S.A for vacation and for educational purposes
so that she got an exposure, travelling itself is an education. The respondent
F did not seek the permission of the Court as it was not required. In para 20,
he stated that child is already. back from U.S.A. and is happily studying in
one of the best educational institutions of Amritsar and the child is happy
and comfortable and being well educated in the house of the respondent.

The matter was listed for hearing on various dates and the parties were
G present at the hearing.
I. On 07.01.2005, counsel for the respondents was directed to ensure
the presence of the child (Simran) in Court on 28.01.2005 along
with her original passport and her renewed passport, if any, be
also produced.
H
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STA TE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.) 521
2. On 28.01.2005, counsel appearing for the respondents stated that A
the passport has been lost. This Court thereupon directed the
respondents to place on record the affidavit stating the passport
number, approximate date on which it was obtained/issued, visas,
if any, for visit to any country. They were also directed to explain
as to why they did not handover the custody of the child Si•nran
to the mother inspite of the Court orders. B
3. On 14.02.2005, this Court passed the following order:-
"The original Passport No.80591819 issued on 6.9.1999 (expired
on 5.9.2004) and renewed original Passport No.F0355467 issued
by the Passport Office, Jalandhar, on 10.9.2004 (which will expire c
on 31.12.2006) of the minor child Harsimran (now Simran) which
have been produced today in Court are directed to be kept in the
Court custody in a sealed cover. The·earlier stand taken by the
respondents that the original passport had been lost and an FIR
had already been registered to that effect stands falsified with the
production of these passports and by the subsequent affidavit D
dated 9th February, 2005 filed by respondent No.4 with a simplistic
statement that it was done by mist~ke.
We are not satisfied with the explanation offered in the affidavit
dated 9th February, 2005. Prima facie, we are satisfied that the
respondents have tried to create false evidence of loss of the E
passports and deliberately made a false-statement to the Court.
Let notice under the Contempt of Courts Act be issued to
respondent nos. 2 to 4. Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv. Accepts notice
on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. He seeks three weeks time
to file reply to show cause. F
Adjourned to 18th of March, 2005.

Respondents, who are present in person, along with the minor
child (Simran) a!"e directed to remain present in Court on the
adjourned date of hearing.
G
Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to peruse the Passports in
the presence of an Officer of the Court not below the rank of a
Deputy Registrar."
4. On 18.03 .2005, notice under the Contempt of Courts Act was also
issued to respondent No.5 and Mr. Manoj Swarup, counsel, H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A accepted the notice on behalf of respondent No.5 and undertook
to file a reply. A further direction was issued on that date directing
the respondents/contemnors Nos. 2 to 5 to surrender their
passport to the Registrar of this Court and remain present in
person on the next date of hearing i.e. 21.04.2005 and the minor
child also.
B
5. On 21.04.2005, the following orders were passed:-
"On the previous date of hearing, Respondents-Contemnors Nos.
2 to 5 were directed to surrender their Passports to the Registrar
of this Court and remain present in person on the next date of
c hearing, i.e., today. Minor child (Simran) was also directed to be
present before us today. The petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2
and 4 and the minor child are present in Court.
Respondents 3 and 5 are stated to have gone out of countiy. The
Passports bearing Nos. F 2015362 issued on 11/2/2005 (expiring
D on 15.3.2009) and E 0077744 issued on 1st of November, 2001
(expiring on 31.10.2011) by the Passport Office, Jalandhar, in
favour ofGurbachan Singh Batra (respondent No.2) and Harbans
Kaur (respondent no.4) respectively have been surrendered before
us in Court today by the counsel for the respondents. These .
passports are ordered to be kept in a sealed cover in court
E custody. Counsel for the respondents seeks time to ascertain as
to when Respondent Nos. 3 and 5 left the country and also when
are they likely to come back.
Adjourned to 6th of May, 2005."
F 6. On 06.05.2005, the following orders were passed:-
"To be listed in the 3rd week of July, 2005.
In the meantime, Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv. shall file an affidavit
stating the particulars of the passports of Respondent/Contemnor
Nos. 3 and 5, including the date of issuance and expiry thereof.
G He is also directed to place on record a zerox copy of the passports
issued to these respondents/contemnors. He shall be at liberty
to file additional documents, if any.
Respondent/cpntemnor No.2 is not present today.

The respondents/contemnors and the minor child, namely, Simran,
H
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 523
are directed to be present in Court on the next date of hearing." A
7. On 15.07.2005, having regard to the nature of the dispute, this
Court decided to resolve the dispute as far as is scientifically
accurate, by having the DNA of (i) the petitioner, (ii) the child
claimed to be the daughter of the petitioner, (iii) Arminderjit Singh
Batra and (iv) Ranjeeta Kaur, tested. It was stated by learned B
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that both
Arminderjit Singh Batra and Ranjeeta Kaur are in the United
States in connection with their son's grave illness. The matter
was adjourned by four weeks to file affidavit to the aforesaid
effect. In the meanwhile, the DNA test will go on as directed. At C
the time of hearing, the envelopes containing the passports of
Gurbachan Singh Batra, Harbans Kaur and two passports of
Harsimran which were opened in Court and are resealed and kept
in safe custody. It was also recorded that the passport of
Harsimran issued on 06.06.1999 was shown to the petitioner who
was present in Court and who had stated that the photograph of D
the child on the passport is not her daughter.

As directed by this Court, the petitioner - 'Nirmaljit Kaur and baby
Simran appeared in the Chamber of Dr. Bhupendra Nath in-charge CGHS
Polyclinic, Supreme Court on 12.08.2005 with their respective counsel and the
blood samples for DNA test ofNirmaljit Kaur and baby Simran were collected E
by Dr. Bhupendra Nath by following the procedure as directed by Dr. Seyed
Hasnain, Director, Centre for DNA Finger Printing, Hyderabad in the presence
of Mr. V.K. Jain, Registrar (J-I). Blood samples were kept in separate vials. The
vials were signed by Dr. Bhupendra Nath as well as Mr. V.K. Jain and after
putting cello tape the vials were kept in separate pouches and then both the F
pouches were put in another pouch before putting them in the thermos flask
containing ice which was wrapped in a cloth and sealed with the stamp of
the Supreme Court of India and was sent to the Director, CDFD, Hyderabad
through Bluedart Courier Express Ltd. on 22.08.2005. A letter dated 22.08.2005
giving the specimen signature of Dr. Bhupendra Nath and Mr. V.K. Jain was
also sent to the Director, CDFD, Hyderabad stating that the signature of Dr. G
Bhupendra Nath and Mr. V.K. Jain may be tallied with the signature on the
vials and if any discrepancy if found, the same may be reported immediately
to Mr. V.K. Jain. But regarding discrepancy in signature nothing has been
reported. A sealed cover had been received on 02.09.2005 from CDFD,
Hyderabad. The DNA report reads as follows:- H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A "DNA TYPING EVIDENCE FOR ESTABLISHING MATERNITY

30th August, 2005
Registrar General
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
New Delhi-I IO 001.
B
Sub:- Submission of DNA typing report in Contempt Petition(Crl.)1/
2005 In WP(Crl.)No. l 10/2003 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of
India-Regarding.

CDFD File No.1648
c DNA typing report No.CDFD/LDFS/2005-1648

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE
Name of the Received on Exhibit Exhibit No.
source/sample
D Blood sample said 23.08.2005 A Xl4a
to be of Smt.
Ninnaljit Kaur
Identification
Form No.I
E
Blood sample said 23.08.2005 B Xl4b
to be of Ms. Simran
Batra Identification
Form No.2
DNA was extracted from the source of the above exhibits and DNA
F profiles were prepared. AmpF/STR idl!ntifiler was used for DNA
profiling of the samples. Data was analysed by using genescan and
genotyper software. ·

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION
G The DNA profile of the source of exhibit B (Ms Simran Batra) is not
matching with the DNA profile of the source of exhibit (Smt. Nirmaljit
Kaur). The alleles shown by red colour in the enclosed table- I present
in the DNA profile of the source of exhibit B are unaccounted in the
DNA profile of the source of exhibit A.
H
CENTRE FOR DNA FINGERPRINTING AND DIAGNOSTICS
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 525

A
CONCLUSION

The DNA test performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to
conclude that the source of exhibit A (Smt. Nirmaljit Kaur) is not the
biological mother of the source of exhibit B (Ms. Simran Batra).
Sd/- B
[CHVGOUD]
Technical Examiner

CHVGOUD
Technical Examiner C
DNA Fingerprinting Laboratory
Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics
DBT, Ministry of Science & Technology
Government of India, Hyderabad-500 076
Enclosures
D
14 Electropherograms
5 Table- I allelic data analysis

6-7 identification forms"

Enclosures 1-5 and Identification Form of the petitioner - Nirmaljit E
Kaur and Simran Batra. Enclosures 6 & 7 have also been received
along with the DNA Report.

Thus the DNA test performed on the petitioner-Nirmaljit Kaur and Ms.
Simran Batra conclusively proved that the source of exhibit A (Nirmaljit Kaur) F
is not the biological mother of the source of exhibit B (Ms.Simran Batra). It
is the consistent stand of the petitioner that she being a 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 that the respondents
in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to grab the property of the petitioner's G
husband caused her daughter Simran Kaur to disappear without 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.

It has been clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of
H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A respondents 2-5 that minor Simran Batra was living with respondent No.3
almost since her birth, which according to them, was so because of the
indifferent attitude of the petitioner towards minor Simran Batra right from the
beginning. It is the case of the petitioner that her husband died on 23 .2.1997
intestate and on the same date respondents 2-5 forcibly took away baby
B Simran Batra from the petitioner with ill-design. It is also her case that the
respondents have fabricated a Will dated 19.10.1996 and registered the same
after the death of the testator on 3 1.3 .1997. 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 i.e. on 23.2.1997.
C Respondents 2-5 have come to Court with unclean hands and with a view to
grab the property of the late husband of the petitioner.

A direction was issued to the counsel for the respondent to produce
the original passport of minor Simran Batra. The counsel, on 28.1.2005, informed
the Court that the passport has been lost. This Court directed the respondents
D to place on record the affidavit stating the passport number, approximate date
on which it was obtained/issued visas, if any, for visit to any country. They
were also asked to explain as to why they did not hand over the custody of
the child to the petitioner-mother in spite of the Court orders. On 9.2.2005,
respondent No.4 filed affidavit stating that the grave mistake has been
E committed while getting passport issued to Simran Batra and the wrong
information had been given to obtain the passport and that respondent No.4
regrets that this mistake was committed. It is further stated thus:.

"The false declaration is in regard to the name of the child. The
child was described as Harsimaran d/o Anninderjit Singh r/o 86, Golden
F Avenue, Amritsar(Punjab ).

That this grave mistake happened on account of the fact that
Simran could not be issued passport without the signatures of her
mother-Nirmaljit kaur. In 1999, father of Simran, Sardar Surinder Singh
was not alive. He expired in the year 1997. The petitioner would never
G have signed the application for issuance of passport to Simran.

It is for this reason that this grave mistake was committed with
a view to send the child-Simran to America. At that time, Arminderjit
Singh alongwith his wife Ranjita and their daughter Sharmeen were
going to America.
H
\.

NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 527 ,,

That the deponent deeply regrets about this grave mistake. The A
deponent places on record her unconditional apology for this mistake."

On 14.2.2005, the original passport issued on 6.9.1999 and the renewed
passport issued on 10.9.2004 of the minor child Simran Batra have been
produced in Court. As the earlier stand taken by the respondents that the
original passport had been lost and the FIR had already been registered to B
that effect stands falsified with the production of these passports and the
subsequent affidavit dated 9.2.2005 filed by respondent No.4 with a simplistic
statement that it was done by mistake. This Court not being satisfied with the
explanation offered in the affidavit dated 9.2.2005 issued notice under the
Contempt of Courts Act to respondents 2-5. This Court, prima facie, was c
satisfied that the respondents have tried to create· false evidence of loss of
the passports and deliberately made a false statement to the Court.

On 10.3.2005, respondent No.4, Harbans Kaur filed the following
affidavit:-
D
"That the deponent had taken a stand earlier that the passport
issued to Simran was lost. This stand was totally incorrect. This stand
ought not to have been taken.
That deponent expresses her remorse over having taken such a
stand. E
That deponent has ~o words to express her regrets. Deponent
tenders her unqualified apology for this grievous mistake that has
occurred.

That Simran could not be issued passport without the signatures F
of her mother-Nirmaljit Kaur. In 1999, father of Simran, Sardar Surinder
Singh was not alive. He expired in the year 1997. The Petitioner would
never have signed the application for issuance of passport to Simran.

-
That the contents of this affidavit are true to my knowledge."
G
Similar affidavit was filed by respondents 2 & 5 expressing regret and
unconditional apology for the said act. Similar affidavit was also filed by
respondent No.3 seeking pardon for such a conduct.

The petitioner has also reiterated in her affidavit filed on 15.3.2005 in
paragraphs 4-6 which read as under: H
~.,
. 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. [
A "4. That on 11.3.2003, the counsel for the petitioner perused the
passports produced by respondent Nos. 2 to 5. On perusal, it
was found that the name of the child is Harsimran, father's name
is Arminder Jit Singh and mother's name is Ranjita Dhingra (though
respondent No.5 is married to respondent No.3 who is Batra).
The date of birth of Harsimaran is 01.01.1992.
B
5. That the date of birth of the pet_itioner's daughter Simaran is
16.2.1992. Thus the child produced before this Hon 'ble Court is
Harsimaran daughter of Arminder Jit Singh. The respondents
Nos. 2 to 5 must be in possession of the original date of birth
certificate of Harsimaran showing the parentage. They may be
c directed to produce the same. The petitioner reiterates that the
child produced before this Hon'ble Court is not her daughter and
illegitimate child of Arminder Jit Singh as stated by her in the
petition.
6. The entries in the passport fully support the case of the petitioner.
D The respondents want to get out of this, and have stated that
false declaration was made, as petitioner would not have agreed
for issue of passport. The identity of the child is established to
be that of Har Simaran daughter of Arminder Jit Singh and further
it can be established beyond doubt by conducting DNA test for
E which Arminder Jit Singh's presence is required."

It is thus clear that the minor child of the petitioner is in the custody
of respondent Nos. 2-5. It is also proved by the DNA test that the child
produced before the Court is not the child of the petitioner. Therefore, the
respondents are bound to produce the real child of the petitioner before this
F Court. We, therefore, issue the direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus
directing respondent Nos. 2-5 to produce Baby Simran Batra daughter of
petitioner in body in this Court enabling the petitioner to have the custody
being the natural mother. Prayer(a) of the writ petition is ordered accordingly
with costs assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
·'·
G Respondent Nos. 2-5 shall produce Simran Batra on 6.1.2006 in this
Court. Call this matter on 6.1.2006 for further directions.

While the direction was issued by this Court to produce the passport,
the counsel made a statement at the next hearing that the passport had been
lost. When the Court directed the respondents to place on record the details
H of the passport etc. by an affidavit, the respondents filed an affidavit expressing
NIRMALJIT KAUR v. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 529
deep regret about the grave mistake and produced the passport in Court. A
Thus it is seen that the earlier stand taken by the respondents that the
original passport has been lost and the FIR has been registered to that effect
stands falsified with the production of these passports and by the subsequent
affidavit dated 9.2.2005. On 14.3.2005, the respondents have also filed an
affidavit tendering their unqualified apology for this grievous mistake that has B
occurred. We have perused the similar affidavits filed by other respondents.
The affidavits, in our opinion, are not genuine and bona fide. The respondents
have come to this Court with unclean hands and with a false case. A perusal
of the entire proceedings in this Court and the proceedings pending before
the other courts would only go to show that the respondents' evil desire to
grab the property and to make the life of the petitioner- a widow with a girl C
child miserable. The result of the DNA test is now crystal clear that the child
produced before this court is not the real child of the petitioner and that the
petitioner's real child Simran Batra is in the custody of the respondent Nos.
2-5 elsewhere. Several deliberate attempts made by the respondents were
falsified by their own conduct in filing affidavits and also the production of
the passports in this Court. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that D
respondent Nos.· 2-5 are guilty of contempt of this Court and, therefore, they
are liable for punishment for their proved misconduct. They have committed
the contempt knowingly and that it is attributable to the neglect on their part.
Respondents 3 & 5 have not so far appeared before this Court under one
pretext or the other. In our view, respondent Nos. 2-5 are liable to punishment E
for their proved disobedience of the order. We, therefore, impose a fine of
Rs.2000/- each to be dep'?sited within three days from this day in this Registry
failing which the respondents shall be punished with simple imprisonment for
a period of one month each.

Both the writ petition and the contempt petition are ordered accordingly. F
The Registrar General is directed to keep the passports which have
been surrendered before this court in safe custody until further orders.

v.s.s. Writ Petition disposed of.