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

2016 Supreme(Chh) 39

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CHANDRA BHUSHAN BAJPAI, J.
Soni Kashyap – Appellant
Vs.
Pawan Kashyap and Ors. – Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 819 of 2015
Decided On : 15-02-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Parag Kotecha, Advocate

Headnote:

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 21 - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Declaring a person to be such a guardian the Court may make an order accordingly - Declaring another person to be guardian – Jurisdiction - Against the aforesaid order, the present Applicant preferred the instant criminal revision challenging the illegality and impropriety of the order passed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the same is illegal and contrary to the facts, as well as against the well settled principles of law - Further grounds taken in the revision petition are that Respondent is behaving with the Applicant in a cruel manner as is evident from Annexure children being aged respectively, it will be safe and proper that they be given in the custody of their mother; they will also get proper care and good atmosphere in the custody of the mother Respondent used to be in a drunken condition everyday and as such he is not taking proper care of children – Held, On a close scrutiny of the entire facts and other materials and also as per the settled principles of law, in this case the welfare and proper custody of the children is the paramount issue for consideration. Learned JMFC has passed the interim order for temporary custody of the children till the disposal of the application under Section 21 of - As per the facts, before filing of the MJC No. 135 of 2015, the children were in the custody of Respondent No. 1 and on an application filed by present Applicant, the concerned Magistrate passed the said order - On the other hand, Learned Appellate Court held that Applicant has no source of income. On perusal of the appellate order, particularly paragraph 7, it reveals that documents have also been filed regarding admission of the children and the Applicant herself submitted that present Respondent No. 1 is earning per month and also getting rent of per month. It shows that there are sufficient funds available with Respondent No. 1 for maintenance and taking care of the children. As welfare of the children is the paramount issue, the Appellate Court held that looking to the entire facts, the order passed by the JMFC is not proper. The Appellate Court further held that custody of the children be given to Respondent No. 1 herein till either of the parties may get an order under the provisions of the Act, 1890 and also directed that the present Applicant may every day at any time can go and meet her children in the house of the Respondents. Nothing has been shown or demonstrated whether this opportunity is being utilized by the present Applicant or not - Nothing is also demonstrated that there is any breach of the order passed by the Appellate Court at paragraph 9 or whether the Applicant had preferred any proceedings under Section 31 of the Act, 2005 – Appeal dismissed

ORDER :

Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. Heard on admission. Facts in brief required for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that the present applicant is the wife of Respondent No. 1, Pawan Kashyap @ Soni. Out of their wedlock, a son namely Vashu Kashyap aged about 7 years and a girl child namely Ku. Shreyanshi Kashyap aged about 5 years were born. The Applicant had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under the provisions of Section 23 sub-section (2) read with Section 21 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 2005') for custody of the children. The said JMFC Bilaspur, in MJC No. 135 of 2015, after hearing both the parties vide order dated 12.8.2015 under the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act, 2005 granted interim custody of the children till final disposal of the said MJC and ordered that Shreyanshi Kashyap and Vashu Kashyap be handed over in the temporary custody of the mother i.e. the Applicant. The said Court further ordered that Respondent No. 1, if he so wishes, may visit the children in the custody of the mother i.e. the Applicant. Being aggrieved by the said interim order, Respondents No. 1 to 3 had preferred Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2015 before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh under the provisions of Section 29 of the Act, 2005 against the present Applicant and Respondents No. 4 and 5. After hearing both the parties, Learned Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the interim order passed by the JMFC dated 12.8.2015 and held that the present Applicant/Respondent No. 1 in the said criminal appeal, i.e. the mother may visit her children every day in the house of the present Respondent No. 1/Appellant in the said criminal appeal and further ordered that custody of the children be given to Respondent No. 1 herein till either of the parties may get an order under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter called 'the Act, 1980').

2. Against the aforesaid order, the present Applicant preferred the instant criminal revision challenging the illegality and impropriety of the order passed by the Appellate Court on the ground that the same is illegal and contrary to the facts, as well as against the well settled principles of law. Further grounds taken in the revision petition are that Respondent No. 1 is behaving with the Applicant in a cruel manner as is evident from Annexure A/4; children being aged about 7 years and 5 years, respectively, it will be safe and proper that they be given in the custody of their mother; they will also get proper care and good atmosphere in the custody of the mother; Respondent No. 1 used to be in a drunken condition everyday and as such he is not taking proper care of the children. Respondent No. 1 used to go out for earning his livelihood and as such no other person responsible is left there to take care of the children. Further it is prayed that the Appellate Court has not considered the matter properly and without considering the welfare of the children passed the illegal order which is not at all sustainable and liable to be set aside. Hence, it is prayed that the order passed by the Appellate Court may be set aside and the order passed by the Learned JMFC dated 12.8.2015 be restored in the interest of justice.

3. Despite service of notice and representation, no written response/objection has been filed in the matter.

4. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties on admission.

5. Learned Counsel for the Applicant duly relied upon the grounds taken in the instant criminal revision and submitted that the JMFC, Bilaspur has passed the order in favour of the Applicant looking to the welfare and age of the children i.e. 7 years and 5 years respectively. In a Criminal Revision filed by Respondent No. 1 herein, the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur by order dated 31.7.2015 ordered that the Children be kept in the custod















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