1. ' WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- In this case the detenue had made a statement that applicant, Krishanlal, is her brother and Gulchand is her husband. She had also stated that she was abducted by respondent, Imdad, who subsequently also forcibly married her but she had not renounced the Hindu faith to which she subscribed. She had desired to go with her husband. Gulchand, about whom she said that he had not divorced her. This was on 20-2-1994. Since then efforts have been made to serve Gulchand, as would be reflected in the proceedings of this matter. Today also H.C.
2. Abdul Wahab of Police Station Kashmore is present and says that Gulchand has not been located at the relevant address. Similar is the fate of postal process issued to Gulchand.
3. ' While in the petition it is mentioned that the detenue had a 2-1/2 years old daughter, Sheela, from Gulchand, today it is maintained that such daughter is with the detenue's referred husband, namely, Gulchand. Even so, the detenue has brought with her a male child, who was born in Darul Aman on August 24, 1994. The incident of alleged abduction took place, according to the criminal miscellaneous, six months prior to the filing of the case here which in turn was filed on 9-2-1994.
4. That means that the incident must have taken place somewhere in August, 1993. In this situation, it is not inconceivable that the child to whom the detenue has given birth is not that of Gulchand at all though the detenue says that he is Gulchand's child. The view is strengthened when we find, from the application under section 491, Cr.P.C., a positive statement by the detenue's brother that such "Gulchand had left Shrimati Hira Bai a year ago by divorcing her". Be that as it may, we are not here to decide the question and the parentage issue must be decided, if a dispute arises, by a competent Court enjoying the relevant jurisdiction. This is also a complete answer to the argument of Mr. G.M. Soomro representing respondent Imdad that the newly born child is the son of respondent No,1 Imdad and, therefore, a Muslim by birth.
5. ' While there can be no problem now to allow the detenue to accompany her parents and brother in the absence of the referred Gulchand coming forward, a desire that she has expressed in Court before us, the immediate question that arises is about the custody of the new born. Mr. G.M.
6. Soomro, on behalf of the respondent No,1, whose two parents are also present, has laid claim to such custody. Again, we are not the Court to decide the question of such custody and the matter must fall to be decided in the relevant Court of competent jurisdiction. Further, it is unthinkable for any Court in Pakistan to abruptly take away a child of tender age, and in fact a suckling baby, from his mother and, therefore, whatever may be the ultimate outcome of prospective proceedings the immediate custody of the child must remain with the mother. At this stage, Mr. G.M. Soomro has said that the respondent and his father and mother may be allowed to pay for the maintenance of the baby but the detenue and her relatives have refused it. That also is their choice and cannot be interfered with.
7. All that, therefore, remains is to ensure the safety of the child about which there can be genuine apprehension. We would, accordingly, direct that the detenue, applicant, and the detenue's mother and father, all of whom desire to look after and to maintain the child, would furnish individual bonds to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar in separate sums of Rs,50,000 to ensure and guarantee the safety and well-being of the child and the detenue would not be allowed to leave the Court till such time as such bonds are furnished and taken on record. If there is delay in this the detenue would continue to remain at Darul Aman awaiting the referred formalities to be completed. Once that is done the child and the mother would be allowed to go with the applicant, detenue's brother and her two parents.
8. ' In so far as the respondent No,1, Imdad, and his parents are concerned, they or any of them are permitted to visit the house of the detenue's parents and brother, where alone the detenue would be housed till appropriate orders of the competent Court of law, and see the child and this can be done once in a week. If there is any danger or apprehension about the child either this Court or any other relevant forum can be moved.
9. Subject to the foregoing, the detenue is ordered to be released from Darul Aman alongwith the suckling baby. Questions of paternity of the child and matrimonial status of the detenue, in the face of claim of marriage from the side of respondent Imdad, are left open to be decided, if occasion arises, by the competent Court of relevant jurisdiction.
10. ' At this stage, the learned counsel for the detenue have asked for police guard because they apprehend danger to the detenue. Let such guard be provided.