SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sureshwar Thakur, J.
Manisha Maheshwari – Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and Ors. – Respondents
CRWP-822-2021 (O&M)
Decided on 11.4.2023

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bawa Karanveer, Advocate for Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pradeep Parkash Chahar, DAG, Haryana
For the Respondent No.4:Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate
For the Respondents Nos.5 and 6:Ms. Jannat Duhan, Advocate for Mr. Sartaj Singh Narula, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
In custody matters, welfare of child and not right of parties is of paramount importance.

Headnote:

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 31 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Custody of minor child – Petitioner is biological mother of minor child – Foundational facts relating to prima facie purported abandonment of minor child by petitioner who is his biological mother, to co-respondent No. 4, who thereafter handed over custody of minor child, to co-respondents No. 5 and 6, is but, borne out from reply furnished to petition by co-respondent No. 4 – Resultantly, at this stage, prima facie, petitioner is not entitled to interim custody of minor child, rather the -respondents No. 5 and 6, who are jointly expressed by Child Welfare Committee and also by this Court, to give maximum care givings to minor child, who but has also accepted them to be his parents – Petition disposed of with observations. (Paras 16 and 18)

Result: Criminal Writ Petition disposed of with observations.

JUDGMENT

Sureshwar Thakur, J.—

Factual Background

The petitioner is the biological mother of the minor child Santosh @ Archit. Undisputedly, at the instant moment, the above minor child is in the custody of co-respondents No. 5 and 6, who became impleaded, as such, through an order made by this Court, on 22.02.2021, upon, CRM-W-140-2021.

2. The facts necessary which relate(s) to the assumption(s) of custody of the minor child Santosh @ Archit are that, co-respondents No. 5 and 6 assumed the custody of the above minor child, on May/June, 2018 from one Anupam Muni, who is arrayed as co-respondent No. 4. The petitioner was at the relevant stage a disciple of corespondent No. 4, and, since she had divorced her previous husband, therefore, co-respondent No. 4 persuaded her to marry his disciple Jagdish. The said marriage was solemnized on 10.02.2018. At the time of the petitioner solemnizing second marriage with Jagdish Rai, thus, she through Annexure R-4/1, handed over the custody of her minor child, to co-respondent No. 4. Annexure R-4/1 is claimed by corespondent No. 4 to be signatured by the present petitioner. However, in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner to the reply of co-respondent No. 4, she submits that the said document is a false, and a forged document. She further denies the contents of Annexure R-4/1 being written by her or the same being signed by her. However, the said denial is left open to be made before the learned civil Court concerned, whereto, the parties have been relegated to make a recourse rather for claiming the ultimate/ final custody of the minor child. The contents of Annexure R-4/1 are extracted hereinafter.

“I, Manisha, am resident of Nepal. Gurdev Sh. Anupam Muni, got my marriage held with Jagga Jagdish resident of Kalanwali. Due to this happiness, I give my son, Santosh to Gurdev Shri Anupam Muni and I am doing this work without any pressure. Now, I have no responsibility on it. Now, I have no right on him. Gurudev Shri Anupam Muni Ji is the owner of the same and after making him his disciple (son) and by bringing up him and by giving Dharam Sanskar to him, he will make him Jain Sant.

Sd/- Manisha

Sd/- Anupam Muni.

3. Moreover, further the delivery of interim custody to co-respondents No. 5 and 6, has been granted by this Court, but after interacting with the minor child, and, thereby this Court concluding that the minor child is happy to reside in the company of co-respondents No. 5 and 6.

4. Co-respondents No. 5 and 6 plead, that since they were also disciples of co-respondent No. 4, and, since the present petitioner, had surrendered the minor child to co-respondent No. 4, through Annexure R-4/1. Thus, when there was none to take care of the minor child besides when the health of the minor child was frail. Resultantly co-respondent No. 4 entrusted the custody of the minor child to them in about May/June, 2018. They further plead that since then the minor child is being given the best care by them. Even the best medical care, is pleaded to be provided to the minor child, but as revealed by Annexure A-2, Annexure whereof becomes appended with their impleadment application. Moreover, Annexures R-5/3 and R-5/4, as appended with their reply, do suggest, that the said child has been admitted by them in Mango Blossoms Kids School, Begu Road, Sirsa, Haryana.

5. Co-respondent No. 4 also furnished his reply to the petition and though in the preliminary objections, he had claimed that the petition is mis-constituted and requires dismissal. Moreover, though he supports the above manner of assumption of custody of the minor child by co-respondents No. 5 and 6. However, he has made speakings thereins, that he had merely handed over the temporary custody of the minor child to co-respondents No. 5 and 6, and but with a promise made by them, to him, that they would hand over his custody to him. However, since the said request was not acceded to, by co-respondents No. 5 and 6, yet resultantly, he appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top