After the court's order, the child was located and is now kept in the Child Welfare Home in Gaya
After a long legal battle, a 27-year-old woman of Bihar's Gaya district is hopeful of getting back her son, who was separated from her after the alleged murder of her husband in 2015 when he was a child of five months.
Munni Devi's seven-year-old son, whose "death certificates" were produced before the Patna High Court twice, was found with her in-laws by the police and he is now in a government home.
The woman had moved the Patna High Court seeking the custody of her son after coming out of jail where she was in connection with the alleged murder of her husband.
She submitted before the court current photographs of her child to prove that he is alive.
"A division bench comprising justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Purnendu Singh in its oral order on September 12 observed that the court is primarily concerned with the safety of the child," her lawyer Avinash Kumar Singh said.
After the court's order, the child was located and is now kept in the Child Welfare Home in Gaya.
"It is only after the intervention of the high court, I will be able to reunite with my son after the next date of hearing on October 11. My five-month-old son was separated from me when I was sent to jail," Munni Devi told PTI over the phone.
However, the court in its recent order only fixed the next date of hearing of the case on October 11 and did not specifically say that the petitioner will be able to reunite with her son on that day.
When she sought custody of her son, she was told that he died shortly after she was sent to jail.
"With the connivance of the police, municipal authorities and local panchayat, my in-laws submitted his forged death certificate before the court not once but twice," Munni Devi said.
The Gaya senior superintendent of police has informed the high court that an FIR has been registered in connection with forging the document.
"But I knew that my son is alive and produced evidence to prove my claim," the woman said.
The child "whose photograph was brought on record" is probably a victim of circumstances, the court observed.