PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.S.Kumaran, J.
Om Pati
Versus
Suraj Bhan Nandal
Criminal Writ Petition No. 333 of 1997,
Decided On : AUGUST 22, 1997
CUSTODY OF MINOR - HABEAS CORPUS - GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT - WELFARE OF THE CHILD - PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION - COURT ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION - In a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor daughter from her grandparents, the court held that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration and dismissed the petition, leaving it open to either party to move for the custody of the child under the appropriate law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a mother, filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the custody of her minor daughter from her grandparents, who had been caring for the child since the petitioner's remarriage in 1990. The petitioner claimed that she wanted to take the child with her at the time of her remarriage, but the grandparents convinced her to leave the child with them for the time being. The grandparents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioner had abandoned the child and that they were providing her with proper care and education.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the child had been living with the grandparents since 1990 and was being properly cared for and educated by them. The court also noted that the petitioner had not taken any concrete steps to obtain custody of the child until she filed the present petition.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the custody of her minor daughter. 2. Whether the grandparents were illegally detaining the child.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the welfare of the child was the paramount consideration in determining the custody of the child. The court found that the child had been living with the grandparents for a significant period of time and was being properly cared for and educated by them. The court also noted that the petitioner had not taken any concrete steps to obtain custody of the child until she filed the present petition. The court concluded that it was in the best interests of the child to remain with the grandparents for the time being.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to either party to move for the custody of the child under the appropriate law.
1. Mrs. Om Pati has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus against the respondents-herein, who are the grandfather and grandmother of the minor, for the production of the said minor and to pass appropriate orders for the the custody of the minor.
2. Petitioner Om Pati was married to Ram Niwas on 16-3-1986 and Kiran alias Monu was born to them on 26-12-1988. Ram Niwas had died even on 15-9-1988, and after his death the petitioner was living with the family of the respondents till she married the cousin of her deceased husband. According to the petitioner at the time of her second marriage, she insisted that she will take her daughter along with her but the respondents No. 1 and 2 convinced her that she can do so after sometime. Accoriding to the petitioner in spite of several attempts made by her including panchayats and a notice, the respondents 1 and 2 are detaining her daughter in illegal custody. According to the petitioner, her daughter is aged about 8 years.
3. In response to the notice issued, the respondents have filed reply alleging that the child has been living with them since July 1989, that the petitioner has got the alternative remedy under the Gurdians and Wards Act and, therefore, she is not entitled to any relief in these proceedings. According to the respondents, the petitioner did not maintain good relations with her husband and had left her matrimonial home in May 1988 and started living with her parents. They allege that she did not even come at the time of death of her husband or at the time of his cremation and other ceremonies, but came in the year July 1989 to have a share in the property. But the respondents admit that she remained in their house prior to her contracting the second marriage in January 1990. They claim that after her second-marriage, she abondened the child though they requested her to take the one year old child with her. The petitioner informed that she will bear children from her second husband, and that the child Kiran will be an hindrance in her relations with her husband. The respondents have also alleged that Kiran is studying in the fourth standard now. They deny that there was any panchayat.
4. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records.
5. The admitted position is that the petitioner has contracted a second-marriage with the cousin of her deceased-husband. Her daughter Kiran alias Monu was born after the death of her husband. She lived in the house of respondents, who are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively, till her second-marriage in the year 1990, and after her marriage her daughter Kiran alias Monu has been living with the respondents.
6. The dispute is, while the petitioner contends that at the time of her second-marriage, she wanted to take her daughter-Kiran with her, the respondents contend that in spite of their request to the petitioner to take her daughter along with her, the petitioner refused to take Kiran, who was about one year old at that time, stating that it would spoil her relations with her husband. They also contend that now Kiran is studying in the fourth standard that the welfare and the interest of the minor should be sole consideration in such matters, and taking into consideration these facts the Court must hold that the welfare of the child will be better served if she is allowed to reside with the respondents. A legal objection taken by the respondents is that the child has been living with them for so many years that it was the petitioner who got married for the second time and left their house leaving Kiran, who was one year old at that time in their custody stating that she will be a hindrance and, therefore, they are not in illegal custody of the minor. According to the respondents, it is only if the respondents are in illegal or forceful custody of the minor, this Court will issue a writ of habeas corpus. In support of this content
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.