http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8

CASE NO.:

Writ Petition (crl.) 110 of 2003

PETITIONER:

Nirmaljit Kaur

RESPONDENT:

State of Punjab & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2005

BENCH:

Ruma Pal & Dr. AR. Lakshmanan

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

WITH

CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1/2005

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 Surinder Singh Batra.

Respondent No.4 - Harbans Kaur is his wife. Respondent No.3 - Arminderjit Singh

Batra is the nephew of Surinder Singh Batra whereas Respondent No.5 - Ranjita Kaur

is the wife of Respondent No.3 - Arminderjit Singh Batra.

According to the petitioner, Surinder Singh Batra died intestate leaving 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.

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 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 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 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 - Arminderjit Singh Batra, on the basis of the said Will, filed

an application under Section 192 of the Indian Succession Act 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 dated 23.12.1997, dismissed the application of respondent No.3 filed under

Section 192 of the 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8

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.

The District Court, 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 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 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 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 petitioner to approach the High

Court.

As already stated, it is the petitioner's case that the child was taken to 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 respondents. It is pertinent

to notice that 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 seen from the statements made by 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. 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 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 of India for production of baby Simran, daughter of the petitioner in this

Court with the following prayer:

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 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 custody of the child be given to the petitioner.

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 Simran had gone to

America for sometime during February, 2000 to see respondent Nos. 3 and 5 who are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8

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 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

10.09.2003 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 because of the indifferent attitude of the petitioner

towards minor Simran right from the beginning. It is submitted though the 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 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 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 present

at the hearing.

1. 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.

2. On 28.01.2005, counsel appearing for the respondents stated that 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 Simran to the mother inspite of the Court orders.

3. On 14.02.2005, this Court passed the following order:-

"The original Passport No.B0591819 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 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 dated 9th February, 2005 filed

by respondent No.4 with a simplistic statement that it was done by

mistake.

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 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.

Adjourned to 18th of March, 2005.

Respondents, who are present in person, along with the minor child

(Simran) are directed to remain present in Court on the adjourned date

of hearing.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8

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, 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.

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 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 country. The

Passports bearing Nos. F 2015362 issued on 11/2/2005 (expiring 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 of Gurbachan

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 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."

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.

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/contemnor No.2 is not present today.

The respondents/contemnors and the minor child, namely,

Simran, are directed to be present in Court on the next date of

hearing."

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 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 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 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

of Nirmaljit Kaur and baby Simran were collected by Dr. Bhupendra Nath by following

the procedure as directed by Dr. Seyed Hasnain, Director, Centre for DNA Finder

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8

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 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. 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:-

"DNA TYPING EVIDENCE FOR ESTABLISHING MATERNITY

30th August,2005

Registrar General

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

New Delhi-110 001.

Sub:- Submission of DNA typing report in Contempt Petition(Crl.)1/2005

In WP(Crl.)No.110/2003 on the file of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India-

Regarding.

CDFD File No.1648

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

DESCRIPTION OF SOURCE

Name of the

source/sample

Received on

Exhibit

Exhibit No.

Blood sample

said to be of Smt.

Nirmaljit Kaur

Identification

Form No.1

23.08.2005

A

X14a

Blood sample

said to be of Ms.

Simran Batra

Identification

Form No.2

23.08.2005

B

X14b

DNA was extracted from the source of the above exhibits and DNA

profiles were prepared. AmpF/STR identifiler was used for DNA profiling

of the samples. Data was analysed by using genescan and genotyper

software.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION

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-1 present in

the DNA profile of the source of exhibit B are unaccounted in the DNA

profile of the source of exhibit A.

CENTRE FOR DNA FINGERPRINTING AND DIAGNOSTICS

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).

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8

Sd/-

[CH V GOUD]

Technical Examiner

CH V GOUD

Technical Examiner

DNA Fingerprinting Laboratory

Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics

DBT, Ministry of Science & Technology

Government of India, Hyderabad-500 076

Enclosures

1-4 Electropherograms

5 Table-1 \026 allelic data analysis

6-7 identification forms"

Enclosures 1-5 and Identification Form of the petitioner \026 Nirmaljit 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) 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 c

ase

that the respondents in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy to grab the property of

the petitioner's 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 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 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 31.3.1997. 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. 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 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 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 Arminderjit Singh r/o 86,

Golden 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 have signed the application for issuance of passport to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8

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.

That the deponent deeply regrets about this grave mistake.

The 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 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

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:-

"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.

That deponent has no 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 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."

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:

"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.

5. That the date of birth of the petitioner'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 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8

petition.

6. The entries in the passport fully support the case of

the petitioner. 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 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 Court. We, therefore, issue the

direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent Nos. 2-5 to produce

Baby Simran Batra \026 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/-.

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 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 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

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 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

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 for their proved disobedience of the order.

We, therefore, impose a fine of Rs.2000/- each to be deposited 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.

The Registrar General is directed to keep the passports which have been

surrendered before this court in safe custody until further orders.