IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Arun Monga, J.
Neha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
CRWP-3013 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 01-06-2020
CUSTODY - Family Law - Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, Section 25 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, particularly Section 25, and emphasized the welfare and interest of the minor child as the paramount consideration in determining custody. The court highlighted the statutory right of the mother to the custody of a minor child under the age of five, unless the father can show cogent reasons for the child being better taken care of by him. The court also emphasized the need for a suitable biological and natural environment for the upbringing of the child, favoring the mother's custody in the absence of such reasons.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought custody of her minor daughter who was allegedly taken away by her husband in a clandestine manner. The husband contended that the custody was not illegal and that he was taking proper care of the child. The court considered the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in determining custody.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the custody of the minor daughter should be with the mother, emphasizing the tender age of the child and the statutory right of the mother to custody under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890. The court also observed the father's misconduct in recording private conversations and emphasized the need for a suitable environment for the child's upbringing.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the father's custody of the minor daughter, the welfare and interest of the child, and the statutory provisions under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the welfare and interest of the minor child, the statutory right of the mother to custody under the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890, and the absence of cogent reasons for the child being better taken care of by the father.
Final Decision: The court directed the father to hand over the custody of the minor daughter to the mother, granted liberty to the father to file an interim custody application, and provided access to the father on weekends. The court also emphasized the father's responsibility for the child's medical care and treatment.
JUDGMENT
Arun Monga, J. - This criminal writ petition has been filed by one Ms. Neha for custody of her minor daughter, namely, Trisha aged about 4 years, who was allegedly taken away by her father in a clandestine manner.
2. The petition came up for hearing for admission on 04.04.2020 during Covid-19 lockdown period through video conferencing. Notice of motion was issued and the husband-respondent No.4, who is having the alleged illegal custody of the minor girl, was directed to remain present in person along with minor child on the next date of hearing. Upon service, respondent-husband filed a detailed reply controverting the pleas taken in the petition. The matter was then taken up for final hearing and learned counsels were heard in presence of both the parents. Petitioner (mother) as well as respondent No.4 (father) are educated professionals from reputed institutions, were also heard in person. Mother is stated to be B.Tech in electronics and telecommunications with honors and father is B.Tech followed by MBA.
3. Brief facts as contended by the petitioner. Marriage between petitioner and respondent No.4 took place on 12.12.2012 as per Hindu Rites. They started living at matrimonial home bearing Flat No. 1290, Silver City Greens, Zirakpur, which is owned by father of respondent No.4. Out of wedlock, a girl child Trisha was born on 16.05.2016. It is stated that sometime on or about 07.09.2019, the husband, in a pre-planned manner, which unfolded later, shifted the matrimonial home to Flat No. 203, Block- B, GH-86, Sector 20, Panchkula. The petitioner as well as minor daughter Trisha also shifted to the new matrimonial home. However, on 16.11.2019 respondent No.4 along with the minor daughter went to his Zirakpur paternal house on the disguise of her medical treatment. Respondent No.4 initially told the petitioner that he will come back after 15-20 days as he was getting treatment for Trisha who is suffering from congenital Talipes Equinovarus (foot abnormality). Later, it turned out to be a pre-planned conspiracy as respondent No.4 simply deserted the petitioner and started staying with his father at Zirakpur flat. Respondent No.4 told petitioner that he would return after 15-20 days as he was getting treatment for Trisha and kept on saying so for couple of months.
4. Initially, contended the petitioner, she did not take any action hoping that things would settle down and the custody of the daughter would be restored by respondent No.4 on his own. Later a police complaint dated 22.02.2020 (Annexure P-2) was submitted by her at Police Station Sector 20, Panchkula, but no action was taken by police. Rather, in the meanwhile, respondent No.4 filed a guardianship petition dated 19.12.2019 (Annexure P/1) against petitioner under Section 25 of Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 (for brevity, 1890 Act), wherein; false averments against the petitioner have been made. Finding no other way, instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking release of her daughter from alleged illegal custody of respondent No.4, asserting that she is legally entitled to get custody of minor daughter who is just 4 years old.
5. Respondent No.4-husband in his return has controverted the averments of the petition. He admitted that minor child is in his custody since 16.11.2019, but urged that the scope of interference by way of writ of habeas corpus is confined to the matters of illegal custody. Being father, contended respondent no.4, in no way, can be termed to be in unlawful custody of his minor daughter. According to him, the child is in his custody as petitioner has abandoned both of them. Ever since the said abandonment, he is taking proper care of the child and her welfare, which is of paramount consideration and has also filed a petition under 1890, Act.
6. It is averred by respondent no.4, that petitioner has filed the petition on false and flimsy grounds. She has no love and affection for the child and has abandoned the child. She, on app
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.