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

2020 Supreme(P&H) 1650

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Arun Kumar Tyagi, J.
Sunny - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Others - Respondent
CRWP No. 370-2019
Decided On : 23-01-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.R.S. Mundra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Sandeep Singh Deol, D.A.G., Punjab, for the Respondents No. 1 to 3., Mr. Pritpal Singh Miglani, Advocate, for the Respondents No. 4 and 5

The welfare of the minor children is the paramount consideration in custody matters, and the legal rights of the natural guardian are upheld, considering the financial and moral capabilities of the parties involved.

Headnote:

Habeas Corpus - Custody of Minor Daughters - Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - The court allowed the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondents No.4 and 5 to release the minor daughters and restore their custody to the petitioner. The court considered the welfare of the minor daughters, the legal rights of the natural guardian, and the financial and moral capabilities of the parties involved.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought the release of his minor daughters from illegal custody by respondents No.4 and 5, claiming that they may be forcibly converted to Christianity. The respondents alleged that the petitioner had given custody of his daughters to them and was unfit to care for them.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, as the natural and legal guardian, was entitled to the custody of his minor daughters. It noted the financial capabilities of the parties, the absence of evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioner, and the welfare of the minor daughters.

Issues: The issues revolved around the custody of the minor daughters, the allegations of neglect and addiction against the petitioner, and the potential conversion of the daughters to Christianity.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the welfare of the minor daughters as the paramount consideration and upheld the legal rights of the natural guardian. It considered the financial and moral capabilities of the parties and the absence of evidence supporting the allegations against the petitioner.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, issued a writ of Habeas Corpus, and directed the release of the minor daughters from the custody of respondents No.4 and 5, restoring their custody to the petitioner. It also allowed access to the minor daughters for respondents No.4 and 5 for a specified period.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral). - The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent No.2 for effecting the release of detenues namely Kanika aged 7 years and Ananya aged 9 months minor daughters of the petitioner who have been kept in illegal custody by respondents No.4 and 5 since 06.02.2019.

2. Briefly stated, the petition has been filed on the averments that Reena Victor wife of the petitioner died after 20 days of the birth of second daughter Ananya due to heart attack in CMC, Ludhiana on 10.06.2018. Respondent No.4, who is real sister in law of the petitioner, came to his house for taking care of newly born child Ananya and after stay of about 4 months took her on the pretext that the petitioner would not be able to take care of her. On 06.02.2019, the petitioner alongwith his elder daughter Kanika went to the house of respondent No.4 where respondents No.4 and 5 tried to persuade the petitioner to convert his religion into Christianity an don his refusal, the petitioner was thrown out of their house by respondents No.4 and 5 who kept his elder daughter Kanika also with them. His elder daughter Kanika, who was admitted in UKG at Jesus Saviour School, Marauli Kalan, Morinda, absented from that school since 07.02.2019. The petitioner approached respondent No.2 to effect release of the detenues but respondent No.3 took signatures of the petitioner and others on blank papers and turned them out of the police station. The petitioner is having apprehension that respondents No.4 and 5 may forcibly convert his minor daughters to Christianity. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus and appointment of Warrant Officer for ensuring release of the detenues.

3. Vide order dated 12.04.2019 passed by Hon'ble Co-ordinate Bench notice of motion (rule nisi) was issued.

4. Learned State Counsel has appeared for respondents No.l to 3 and opposed the petition.

5. Respondents No.l to 3 filed reply by way of affidavit of Waryam Singh, PPS, Assistant Commissioner of Police (Central), Ludhaina. In their reply, respondents No.l to 3 have pleaded that the petitioner had moved an application dated 14.10.2019 with SHO, Police Station, Division No.3, Ludhiana and during inquiry it was found that peitioner himself had given custody of his daughters to respondents No.4 and 5-sister of his wife and her husband and his daughters do not want to live with the petitioner. Respondent No.4 has also filed peititon under Sections 7 and 8 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 for her appointment as legal guardian of minor daughters of the petitioner.

6. Mr. Pritpal Singh Miglani, Advocate has appeared for respondents No.4 and 5 and has filed reply to the petition alongwith his power of attorney which is taken on record.

7. In their reply respondents No.4 and 5 have taken preliminary objections as to the petitioner having concealed material facts regarding compromise dated 15.02.2019 between the petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5, the petitioner having no source of income and there being no female member in his family to look after the minor children and the petitioner not having approached the Court with clean hands. In their reply on merits, respondents No.4 and 5 have pleaded that petitioner himself left his minor daughters Kanika and Ananya with respondents No.4 and 5 and agreed vide compromise dated 15.02.2019 that both the children will remain with respondents No.4 and 5. Respondents No.4 and 5 have pleaded that the petitioner is not a wise person. He is addicted to alcohol and indulged in various bad activities. He is not concerned about the welfare and future of the minor daughters. The petitioner is having no sister or brother and there is no other person to look after and take care of the minor children. Kanika was studying in UKG at Jesus Christ School at Marauli Kalan, Morinda. T

              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