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

1987 Supreme(All) 284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. R. MISRA
ZAHIRUL HASSAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. - Respondents
CRI. MISC. APPLN. 6608 Of 1987
Decided On : 06/05/1987

Advocates Appeared:
RAJIV SHARMA JITENDRA

The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in matters concerning the custody of minor children.

Headnote:

CUSTODY OF CHILD - MOTHER'S RIGHT - MOHAMMEDAN LAW - S. 97, CR. P. C. - INTERPRETATION - WELFARE OF THE CHILD - PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION - ALTERNATE REMEDY UNDER GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT - NOT A BAR - HABEAS CORPUS - MAINTAINABLE.

Fact of the Case:

A dispute arose between a Muslim husband and wife over the custody of their 11/2-year-old child. The wife filed an application under S. 97 of Cr. P. C., alleging that the husband had forcibly taken the child from her custody. The husband contended that he was the legal guardian of the child and that the case was not covered by S. 97 of Cr. P. C. He also argued that the wife's proper remedy was to file an application under the Guardians and Wards Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that under Mohammedan law, the mother is the natural guardian of the child until he reaches the age of 7 years. The court also held that the case was covered by S. 97 of Cr. P. C., as the husband's act of forcibly taking the child from the wife amounted to wrongful confinement. The court further held that the wife was not required to file an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, as she had a clear right to an order for the custody of the child under S. 97 of Cr. P. C.

Issues: 1. Whether the father or the mother is the legal guardian of a child under Mohammedan law? 2. Whether the case is covered by S. 97 of Cr. P. C.? 3. Whether the wife's proper remedy is to file an application under the Guardians and Wards Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Mohammedan law, the mother is the natural guardian of the child until he reaches the age of 7 years. 2. The case is covered by S. 97 of Cr. P. C., as the husband's act of forcibly taking the child from the wife amounted to wrongful confinement. 3. The wife is not required to file an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, as she has a clear right to an order for the custody of the child under S. 97 of Cr. P. C.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the husband's application and directed him to comply forthwith with the order of the trial court for delivery of custody of the child to the wife.

R. R. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) OUT of the wedlock of Zahirul Hasan and Smt. Hasin Bano, a son was born. In January, 1987 the father forcibly took the child aged 1 years from the custody of the mother. The mother, therefore, moved an application under S. 97 of Cr. P. C. against the father. It is admitted case of the parties that relationship of husband and wife still subsists. During pendency of the said appliction before the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar, an attempt for a compromise was made but the same failed. On a consideration of the entire facts of the case the Additional District Magistrate (City), Kanpur Nagar came to conclusion that the wife was legally competent to keep the child with her and the case was covered by the provisions of S. 97 of Cr. P. C. He also relied upon the concession made on behalf; of the husband that he has no objection in giving custody of the child to his mother. Therefore, the husband was directed to hand over the child to the mother in presence of the police and was further directed not to take away the child without due consent of the mother. The husband did not comply with the said directions of the Court. He, however, filed a revision against the said order which has also been dismissed by the VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar, vide an order, dt. 6-5-1987.

( 2 ) I have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the husband. The first submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant is that the father was, under facts of the case, guardian of the child and not the mother. The second submission is that the present case is not covered by the provisions of S. 97 of Cr. P. C. inasmuch as confinement of the child in the present case did not amount to an offence. Thirdly, it is contended that at any rate, the proper remedy of the wife in the present case was to move an application under the Guardians and Wards Act.

( 3 ) LET us now examine these contentions one by one. Under the Mohammedan Law mother is entitled to the custody (Hizanat) of her male child until he has completed the age of 7 years. This position continues even though she is divorced except in cases where she remarries. The word custody is synonymous with guardianship. In the case of Imambandi v. Haji Musaddi, AIR 1918 PC 11, it was held that Hidaya and Fatwa Alamgiri are recognised as standard authorities in this country for Hanafi Sunnis. The following extracts are illustrative of the right of custody of the mother.

( 4 ) IN Hamilton Hiday Vol. 1 at page 385 it has been observed: - "if a separation takes place between a husband and wife who are possessed of infant child, the right of nursing and keeping is vested with the mother because it is recorded that the woman once applied to the Prophet saying:"o Prophet of God: this is my son the fruit of my womb cherished in my bosom and suckled at my breast and his father is desirous of taking him away from me in his own care to which the Prophet replied. " thou hast a right in the child prior to the husband, so long as thou doth not marry with a "stranger" moreover a mother is not only more tender but also better qualified to cherish a child during infancy so that committing the care to her is of advantage to the child. . . ".


( 5 ) IN Fatwai Alamgiri Vol. 1 page 728 it has been observed : "the mother is of all the persons best entitled to the custody of her infant children during the concubial relationship as well as after its dissolution. "

( 6 ) AMIR Ali in Mohammedan Law, Vol. II, at page 304 has observed : "the mother can on no account give up her right of hizanat for even if she were to obtain a Khula in lieu of her abandonment of her right to her child custody. Khula will be valid and she will retain a right of Hizanat. "

( 7 ) MULLA in Principles of Mohammedan Law, para 352 (18th Edition) has observed : - "352. Right of mother to custody of infant children- The mother is entitled to the custody (Hizanat) of her male child until he has completed the




























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