Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Vinay Joshi, Valmiki Sa Menezes, JJ.
Ashish - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 552 of 2023
Decided On : 06-10-2023
KIDNAPPING - PARENTAL RIGHTS - IPC Sections 361, 363; Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 4(2) - The court interpreted Sections 361 and 363 of the IPC, which define kidnapping and its punishments, alongside the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, which establishes the father as a natural guardian of a minor. The court concluded that a father cannot be charged with kidnapping his own child from the mother’s custody unless there is a court order prohibiting him from doing so. The interpretation of 'lawful guardian' was pivotal in determining that the father, as a natural guardian, was not committing an offense under the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The application seeks to quash an FIR against a father for allegedly kidnapping his 3-year-old son from the custody of the mother. The mother reported that the father forcibly took the child, leading to the charge under Section 363 of the IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the father, being the natural guardian under Hindu law, could not be charged with kidnapping his own child unless there was a legal prohibition. The court emphasized that both parents are lawful guardians, and the mother’s custody rights do not equate to exclusive guardianship.
Issues: Whether a father can be charged with kidnapping for taking his own minor child from the custody of the mother.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a father, as a natural guardian, cannot be guilty of kidnapping his child from the mother’s custody unless a competent court has issued a prohibition against him. The definitions of 'lawful guardian' under the IPC and the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act were critical in this determination.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR against the father, concluding that no prima facie case for kidnapping was established, and that continuing the prosecution would amount to an abuse of the court process.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
VINAY JOSHI, J. - Heard. ADMIT.
2. The matter is taken up for final disposal by the consent of learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
3. This is an application seeking to quash the First Information Report in Crime No.431 of 2023 registered with the Gadge Nagar Police Station, Amravati City for the offence punishable under Ss. 363 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC').
4. At the instance of the report lodged by the biological mother, crime has been registered against the biological father. The informant mother has alleged that, on 29/3/2023 the applicant father forcibly took away their minor son aged 3 years, and thus committed an offence of kidnapping. A short issue falls for consideration is whether a father can be booked for the offence of kidnapping for taking away his own minor child from the custody of the mother.
5. Learned Counsel for the applicant would submit that by no stretch of imagination the act of the applicant attracts the offence of kidnapping as defined under Sec. 361 of the IPC, punishable under Sec. 363 of the IPC. It is his contention that the applicant being a father and natural guardian of a minor, he cannot be booked for the aforesaid offence.
6. There is no dispute that the parties are governed under the Hindu Law. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the applicant is a biological father whilst the informant is the biological mother of a minor son aged 3 years.
7. Sec. 361 of the IPC which is relevant for our purpose, reads as below :
8. The explanation added thereto expands the words "lawful guardian" to include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person. However to complete the offence the person who takes away the minor must not fall within the conspectus of the terms "lawful guardian".
9. Contextually, it necessitates us to advert towards Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 ('the Act'), which reads as below :
(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl - the father, and after him, the mother; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;"
10. Though the parties are governed under the Hindu law, we have also taken into account the term "Guardian" as defined under Sec. 4(2) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, which reads thus :
11. Bare perusal of Sec. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 conveys that for a Hindu minor, the father is a natural guardian, and after him, the mother. Sub-clause (a) only speaks about the custody of a minor up to the age of 5 years. Therefore, it is abundant clear that the applicant father is a natural guardian of a minor in absence of the order otherwise passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Sec. 361 of the IPC states about the lawful guardian as explained in the Sec. itself. If the minor of the age specified in the Sec., is taken out of the custody of the lawful guardian of such a minor, then the offence would be complete. It is not a case that the mother was lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of the minor by the order of compete
A father cannot be charged with kidnapping his own child from the custody of the mother unless there is a court order prohibiting him from doing so, as both parents are considered lawful guardians un....
A father cannot be charged with kidnapping his own child from the mother’s custody unless a court order restricts his guardianship rights.
Right of mother to custody of children is not absolute right and that right is not superior to right of lawful guardian.
A biological father taking lawful custody of his children with the mother's consent does not constitute kidnapping under Section 361 IPC.
Under Mohammedan law, the father is the natural and legal guardian of the minor children. The mother's right to the custody of the children is not absolute and is subject to the right of the lawful g....
The welfare and interest of the child are of paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the role of a mother as a lawful guardian is crucial.
Father being a natural and lawful guardian, removal by him of his son below 5 years of age from his mother is not an offence under Section 361 of IPC.
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Consent of victim is immaterial and subsisting family bond cannot be excuse for escape of victim from parental custody at pretext or behest of pleasant and affab....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
