IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
Karolin Jagdishbhai Macwan - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No. 7475 of 2015
Decided On : 05-05-2017
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section-29 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article-227 – Order of permanent custody of the child – Legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under Section-29 of Act, 2005 – Challenging the order passed by the Second Judicial Magistrate First Class – Disputes cropped up between the applicant and the respondent No. 2. There are allegations and counter-allegations at the end of the parties. Ultimately, a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived reduced into writing duly signed by the parties Memorandum of Understanding – Whereas both the Parties had frequent misunderstandings and mutual incompatibility between them for the certain reasons which in the interest of the family prestige are not mentioned. The marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken. Hence the elders and well wishers have made hectic attempts to pacify the differences between the Parties. But unfortunately, all their attempts failed. Hence, now the petitioners thought that no purpose will be served in continuing the marriage in such a condition and hence they have come forward to settle the issue between them – Held, It is for the father to plead and prove the Mothers unsuitability since Thalbir is below five years of age. In these considerations the fathers character and background will also become relevant but only once the Court strongly and firmly doubts the mothers suitability; only then and even then would the comparative characteristic of the parents come into play – There is nothing on record except the allegation that the custody of Aaron with her mother will not be in his interest. The allegations levelled by the husband against his wife as regards the ailment of bipolar disorder also appears to be quite vague – impugned order needs to be disturbed. In the result, this application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad is hereby quashed – Custody of Aaron shall remain with the applicant. As pointed out earlier that the Magistrate is not permitted to pass final order of custody and any order that the Magistrate can pass, must have limited validity either in terms of time or happening of an event – The Magistrate cannot pass order of permanent custody of the child to the aggrieved person – Order accordingly. (Paras 14 to 16)
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
1. By this application under Article-227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant questions the legality and validity of the order dated 04/12/2015 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in the Criminal Appeal No. 73 of 2015 filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under Section-29 of the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, challenging the order passed by the Second Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nadiad below Exh. 5 in the Criminal Misc. Application No. 468 of 2015 decided on 07/09/2015.
2. The facts giving rise to this application may be summarized as under:-
2.1 The applicant herein got married to the respondent No. 2 on 24/03/2007 in accordance with the Christian Marriage Act at Vadodara. In the wedlock, a son named Aaron was born on 09/03/2012.
2.2 It appears from the materials on record that serious matrimonial disputes cropped up between the applicant and the respondent No. 2. There are allegations and counter-allegations at the end of the parties. Ultimately, a Memorandum of Understanding was arrived at dated 01/11/2014 reduced into writing duly signed by the parties. The Memorandum of Understanding reads as under:-
"MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING MADE AND EXECUTED
ON THIS 01.11.2014 AT BANGALORE
BETWEEN:
KEROLIN JAGDISHBHAI MACWAN
D/o. Jagdishbhai C. Macwan,
W/o. Neil Sunil
Aged about 29 years,
R/at Site No. 2, (Old Door No. 4/4),
Behind Reliance Fresh,
Church Street Cross,
Bangalore - 560066
Hereinafter called as FIRST PARTY of the One Part
AND
NEIL SUNIL
S/o. Sunil Arthur John
R/at. Site No. 2, (Old Door No. 4/4),
Behind Reliance Fresh,
Church Street Cross,
Bangalore - 560066
Hereinafter called as the SECOND PARTY of the other Part.
Whereas the Second Party is the husband of the First Party. The Marriage between the First Party and the Second Party was solemnized on 24.03.2007 at Hotel Surya Palace, Baroda as per Christian rites and customs. The said marriage is a love marriage. At the time of marriage there was no Demand of cash or kind by either side.
Whereas after marriage, both the parties have lived together as husband and wife at Bangalore. In the said wed lock a baby boy by name AARON JOHN was born on 09.03.2012.
Whereas both the Parties had frequent misunderstandings and mutual incompatibility between them for the certain reasons which in the interest of the family prestige are not mentioned. The marriage between the petitioners is irretrievably broken. Hence the elders and well wishers have made hectic attempts to pacify the differences between the Parties. But unfortunately, all their attempts failed. Hence, now the petitioners thought that no purpose will be served in continuing the marriage in such a condition and hence they have come forward to settle the issue between them.
Whereas during the meeting held on 01.11.2014 both First Party and the Second Party have agreed on certain terms and conditions and the same are put in to this Memorandum of Understanding.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
1. Both the parties hereby declare that the marriage between the First Party and the Second Party is a Love Marriage. And further the First Party declares that there was no demand of dowry or any of such nature either by the Second Party or by his family members.
2. The First Party and the Second Party hereby declare that they have not disclosed the real reason for the separation as it affects the prestige of the families.
3. The First Party and the Second Party have mutually agreed to separate from the marital bond from today i.e. from 1.11.2014. The First Party has agreed to move out of the matrimonial home and she will shift to her native place.
4. The Custody of the minor child AARON JOHN will remain with the Second Party and the First Party will have no objections for the same. The First Party will have visitation rights of the minor child with prior intimation/consent of the Second Party. The First Party declares that under no circumstances s
Athar Hussain v. Syed Siraj Ahmed and others
Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni v. Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni & Ors. 2011 (3) GLR 1965
Kumar V. Jahgirdar v. Chetana K. Ramatheertha
Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Anr. AIR 1987 SC 3 (1)
Nil Ratan Kundu and another v. Abhijit Kundu
N. Nirmala (Smt) v. Nelson Jeyakumar
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.