PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J.
Ravit Chowdhry - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others – Respondent
CWP-24956-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 16-02-2024
JUDGMENT :
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the present writ petition is to the proceedings initiated before the respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad, under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein, a warrant of Search dated 25.10.2023 (Annexure P-1) has been issued authorizing Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station, Sadar Ratia, to enter the house of the petitioner and to produce Ekat i.e. son of the petitioner before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratia.
PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 was solemnized as per Hindu rites and ceremonies on 01.11.2021 and out of the said wedlock, a son namely, Ekat was born on 17.10.2022. Respondent No.3 is working as a Senior Manager with a real estate group namely ELAA in Gurguram while the petitioner is working as an Assistant Vice President with another real estate group namely Tulip Infratech, Gurugram. The parties were residing together at Gurugram. It is alleged that respondent No.3 left the matrimonial house on 22.09.2023 without any intimation and she also took away her belongings and jewellery. She deserted her son Ekat, who was then about one year old, at the house with the petitioner and left him there while leaving. It is further alleged that respondent No.3 treated the petitioner with cruelty even before leaving the matrimonial house and that she did not make any enquiry or showed any concern about the well being of the minor child. Thereafter, on 27.09.2023, respondent No.3 entered the house with certain unknown persons and started shouting at the petitioner and creating a public unruly scene in the building and in the surroundings. It was with great persuasion that family members of respondent No.3 and the parents of petitioner were able to sit across on 28.09.2023, in an attempt to resolve the issue. The respondent No.3, however, again came with police personnel and asked for her clothes and other belongings and all her belongings were taken to the police post. As respondent No.3 continued to create a scene and harassed the petitioner, a complaint dated 28.09.2023 was submitted by the petitioner at Police Station, Sushant Lok, District Gurugram against respondent No.3, giving a narration of the entire incident that had taken place.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that notwithstanding that respondent No.3 had herself deserted the child and left him at the matrimonial house, a proceeding was instituted by respondent No.3 under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at Ratia, District Fatehabad and a search warrant dated 25.10.2023 was issued by the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratia, District Fatehabad. It had been alleged in the said complaint that the petitioner illegally confined the infant. The police officials tried to enter the house of the petitioner and threatened the brother of the petitioner with dire consequences if the child is not produced. A complaint regarding the above said incident was submitted by the petitioner to the SHO, Police Station Sushant Lok, Gurugram on 02.11.2023. The present writ petition has now been filed challenging the proceedings initiated before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ratia, District Fatehabad for production of the minor child along with the orders passed therein.
PLEADINGS AND SUBMISSIONS BY RESPONDENTS.
4. No response has been filed on behalf of the respondent-State of Haryana, however, a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.3 Sulekha wherein, she has narrated her version of the incident admitting that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No.3 had been solemnized on 01.11.2021 at New Delhi. Allegations of demand of dowry, harassment and cruelty meted out to her by the petitioner and members of his family have also been leveled in the said response. It is further averred that her in-laws used to torture her
: Where a preferential custody of child in law is to be with mother but is not with her then upon examination of circumstances of case issuance of search warrant cannot be denied to a mother.
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and custody with the father cannot be deemed wrongful confinement under Section 97 CrPC.
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and a father's custody cannot be deemed wrongful confinement under Section 97 CrPC.
The court emphasized the need to consider the circumstances of each case and the welfare of the child in determining the admissibility of a search warrant for child custody under Section 97 of the Co....
Courts prioritize a child's welfare in custody disputes, generally favoring mothers for children under five, unless specific circumstances suggest otherwise.
In custody disputes involving minors under five, the court prioritizes the welfare of the child and generally favors maternal custody unless compelling circumstances dictate otherwise.
The welfare of the child is the decisive factor for the claim of custody, and the court should strike a balance between the welfare of the child and the rights of the parents over the child.
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.