Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BHANWAR SINGH
VIVEK KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
ASHOK KUMAR - Respondents
W. P. 202 Of 2002
Decided On : 07/15/2002
HABEAS CORPUS - CUSTODY DISPUTE - [Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 17, 25, 26, 39] - The court discussed the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, particularly Sections 17, 25, 26, and 39, which deal with the appointment of a guardian, custody of a minor, and the welfare of the child. The court emphasized the natural guardian's entitlement to custody and the paramount consideration of the child's welfare in determining custody disputes.
Fact of the Case:
The mother filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking custody of her son, alleging that the opposite parties forcibly took custody of the child and were motivated by property interests. The opposite parties contested, claiming that the child willingly lived with them and it was in his best interest to remain with them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mother, being the natural guardian, was entitled to the custody of her son. It observed that the opposite parties' motives were property-related and not in the child's best interest.
Issues: Custody dispute, Motive of the parties, Child's welfare
Ratio Decidendi: The natural guardian's entitlement to custody, paramount consideration of the child's welfare, and the motives of the parties influenced the court's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the opposite parties were commanded to release the child from their custody with immediate effect.
( 1 ) THIS petition for a writ of habeas corpus has been filed on behalf of Vivek Kumar aged 13 years by his mother Smt. Meenakshi Devi with the contention that she being a natural and legal guardian of her son is entitled to his custody.
( 2 ) SHORTLY stated, the petitioners case is that after her husbands death, the opposite parties, who are the brother, grandmother and the sister respectively of her husband, forcibly started living at her residence No. 9/217, Indira Nagar, Lucknow which was allotted in her husbands name during her lifetime. They misbehaved with her and threatened to take away her both the children if she would offer any resistance to their dictates. It was in these circumstances that she was forced to leave her husbands house on 28-6-2001 but she was not allowed to take along her son Vivek, although she could manage to carry with her another son Abhishek Kumar. She moved an application to the Additional District Magistrate, Lucknow for providing security to her as she was afraid of the atrocious attitude of the opposite parties. In the meantime, the opposite party No. 1 who is the uncle of the petitioner Vivek moved an application before the District Judge for his appointment as guardian of the petitioner. Such a move was made with evil design to pressurize the petitioners mother Meenakshi to abandon her claim for employment under Dying in Harness Rules. Further, there was no justification for moving such an application when Meenakshi had already been appointed as guardian of the petitioner by the Court vide order dated 9-11-2000 as contained in Annexure-1. As a matter of fact, there cannot be a better guardian for a child other than his own mother but the opposite party No. 1 filed application for his appointment as legal guardian in order to pressurize her so as to relinquish her rights over the accommodation which was allotted in her husbands name and other movable and immovable properties. On the strength of her legal claim, Meenakshi succeeded in seeking employment and she is regularly earning monthly salary of Rs. 5,000. 00 as a Central Government employee. The opposite parties turned down all requests of the petitioners mother to hand over the petitioners custody but every time, not only they refused but also threatened her with dire consequences. In these compelling circumstances, the petitioner was obliged to file this petition for a writ of habeas corpus commanding the opposite parties to release the petitioner from their illegal custody.
( 3 ) ). The opposite parties 1 and 3 filed their objections and asserted that after the death of Pradeep Kumar on 8-2-1999, they allowed his widow Meenakshi Devi to draw the amount of gratuity, group insurance and other dues. After collecting all her dues, she started living in a different house with one Naseeb Prasad Bhartiya. However, the petitioner Vivek being mature refused to accompany her mother. After a lapse of about one year, she has filed this petition for habeas corpus, possibly with an intention to grab over the house in which the opposite parties and Vivek Kumar have been living. They have denied that they came to live in the house allotted to Pradeep Kumar after his death. As a matter of fact, they were living with him for quite a long time. They have denied that they threatened the petitioners mother with dire consequences. Also they have denied the allegation that Meenakshi Devi was forced to leave the house. Master Vivek Kumar is living with the answering opposite parties with his free consent and as he is mature enough to take a decision, he is not at all willing to go and live with his mother. Otherwise also, it is not in the welfare of the child to go to Meenakshis place as she is an uneducated lady and she has been living in the company of altogether a stranger person Naseeb Prasad Bhartiya. The boy will neither get a healthy or moral atmosphere there nor he will be treated with care and affection by the companion of Meenak
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
