Search the Internet           Tips

The Rediff Special/ Swapna Khanna

She's an heiress to property worth Rs 2,500,000. Yet 14-year-old Geeta lives among the destitute at a remand home, waiting for her future to be decided by the Delhi high court.

Even her natural father, Uma Shankar, refuses to take custody of his daughter.

"My bhabhi (sister-in-law)," he says, "could not have a child, so my brother kept requesting us to give them our second child. We already had a daughter and, since we could not afford the second child, we thought it would be a good idea to give her to them. My brother was financially well off, so I thought my child's future would be secure with him. I never thought the poor girl would have to go through all this."

This was not always Geeta's fate. Until a few years ago, she led a pampered existence with her adoptive parents, Itwari Lal and Manso Devi. Then, in 1992, Itwari Lal died. Manso Devi followed him three years later, leaving Geeta a house worth Rs 2,500,000 in Dayanand colony (Shakarpur, east Delhi), gold jewellery and cash worth Rs 100,000.

And Geeta's nightmare began!

Within a week, Meera, who had earlier worked for the family as a maid servant, moved into the house with her three sons -- Jagdish, Kailash and Babu. She took possession of the gold jewellery and cash left by Manso Devi and rented out a portion of the house.

Within a couple of years, she also apparently obtained a ration card, where her son, Kailash, was registered as the son of the late Itwari Lal and Geeta -- who was just 10 years old then -- was registered as his sister.

Ironically, it was Meera's greed that brought her deed to light. She apparently attempted to dispose Geeta's home through certain property dealers. Unfortunately for her, some policemen who heard of the deal wanted a share of the money.

Meera's son Kailash was furious and filed a complaint with the policemen's senior officers. It was while his complaint was being investigated that Geeta's tragic story surfaced.

The matter was immediately referred to a Delhi-based NGO called Pratidhi.

"During the investigations," says a Pratidhi representative, "it was found that Meera used to work as a maidservant in Geeta's house. Her main job was to take care of Geeta's ailing, adoptive mother after the death of her adoptive father in 1992. Meera stopped sending Geeta to school in 1998, when she was in the sixth standard, and made her work in the house."

A neighbour, who requested anonymity, added: "Meera also wanted to get Geeta married to one of her sons so that the property would automatically get transferred in her name."

As she began counselling sessions with Pratidhi, Geeta finally admitted Meera was ill-treating her. She also said she would prefer to stay at a boarding school instead of staying at home. It was then that the Juvenile Welfare Board and Pratidhi rescued her. She was sent to a boarding school in the Garhi area.

But Geeta was unhappy there and ran away. An FIR was lodged. She was traced soon and sent to the state-run remand home, Nirmal Chayya. Meera was evicted from Geeta's home and the property sealed by the Juvenile Welfare Board.

Meera, who now stays with her sons in a jhuggi at Trilok Puri, east Delhi, petitioned the sessions court against her eviction. The court ruled that the Juvenile Welfare Board did not have the power to seal the property and has fined it Rs 20,000 for ordering the eviction. Though the Board paid the fine, it continues to retain the key to Geeta's home.

Pratidhi has now appealed to the Delhi high court to look into the matter and set up a trust to take care of the child and her property till she comes of age.

It was learnt that, during the last hearing which was held on November 2, Geeta told the judge that she wanted to go back and stay with Meera.

The Pratidhi official is furious. "Geeta was referred to the Juvenile Welfare Board so that she could be properly rehabilitated and provided with proper social security. But it seems she has not been counselled well. Not have we been allowed to counsel her. The Juvenile Welfare Board has not permitted us to meet the girl since the last eight months, saying that the case is still in court. We only want to make sure her property is not handed over to the wrong people because of any small mistake that she might unknowingly make. She is too young to decide what is good for her and what is not."

Manju Vashni, the superintendent at Nirmal Chayya, defends their decision, "We counsel all the juveniles who are under our care. We try and tell them what is good for them and what not. They need a lot of counselling because, at their tender ages, they are not able to necessarily make the right judgement. But since we are a government body, we have to make sure we do not interfere too much in a juvenile's private lives. Our role is to rehabilitate them and provide them with a sense of security. But we don't force anything on them. Eventually, we let them decide for themselves."

The court, it is learnt, was attempting to decide who should be given custody of the child. During the last hearing, Geeta's natural father, Uma Shankar, was summoned and asked if he would take custody of his daughter. He refused. "I remarried after Geeta’s mother died. I have my own family to look after. I have given away the girl and cannot take her back today just because she has a huge property in her name."

A few days ago, a terrified Uma Shankar came to Pratidhi’s office. rediff.com also happened to be there. He pleaded with Pratidhi to spare him from attending the next hearing which was scheduled for Friday, November 10.

He told rediff.com: "When I was coming out of the court after the November 2 hearing, three men surrounded me. They hit me on my face and threatened me with dire consequences if I came to court on November 10. They warned me that unless I refused to take custody of my daughter -- if I was asked to do so by the judge -- they would not spare me or my family. I want to stay away from this mess. I cannot risk the life of my family for someone I have already given away. I understand there is nobody to look after my daughter. But if I agree to take her custody, they will kill me. Then who will look after my children?"

Pratidhi is not ready to give up her cause so soon. "We took on the responsibility of finding her a guardian and, until we find the right person, she will be kept in the State's custody. At the moment, her natural father refuses to take her custody. If she agrees to stay with Meera, what is the guarantee that she will be looked after properly? And her property would surely go into the wrong hands."

Fortunately for Geeta, the decisive hearing of her case, which was scheduled for Friday, ended on a positive note. Judge Manmohan Sareen directed the Juvenile Welfare Board to look for a Delhi-based boarding school for Geeta. He also asked the Board to shortlist the schools by November 21 so that, by the end of the month, the child is once again studying in a decent school.

The judge ruled that the money for her schooling would come from the rent deposited by the five tenants who live on the first floor of Geeta’s house in Dayanand colony, East Delhi. Each of the five tenants -- S K Banerjee, Vinay Kumar, Aslum, Sudhir Kumar and Rajiv Kumar -- also have to pay the rent due to Geeta since April 1999. They have been asked to make the payment in two installments -- either by cash or through demand draft in the name of registrar of the Delhi high court a/c Geeta. The first installment has to be deposited by November 30.

The court also directed the Juvenile Welfare Board to open the house, get the ground floor cleaned and relock it.

Meera now says she only has Geeta's welfare in mind and wants the child to remain in safe hands. She complained to the court that the Juvenile Welfare Board does not allow her to meet Geeta. To which the judge said she could meet the girl on the court's premises itself. On being asked if she would like to meet Meera, the child refused. She also said that, if given a chance, she would not like to stay with Meera.

Geeta's natural father did not come to court on Friday. Pratidhi vice-president Raj Mangal Prasad told rediff.com that Uma Shankar has been given police protection. He will be provided a police escort if his presence is required in court.

The next hearing, scheduled for November 21, will decide which school would Geeta will be sent to.

Design: Dominic Xavier

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this report