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

1981 Supreme(All) 225

High Court of Allahabad
K.N. Seth, K.C. Agrawal, JJ.
Vinayak Goyal – Appellant
Versus
Prem Prakash Goyal – Respondent
Criminal Misc. Habeas Corpus Petition No. 4645 of 1981
Decided On : May 18, 1981

Advocates Appeared:
Manju Goel, R.P. Goyal

The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and in this case, the petitioner's welfare lay in remaining with his mother.

Headnote:

HABEAS CORPUS - CUSTODY OF MINOR - GUARDIANSHIP - HINDU MINORITY AND GUARDIANSHIP ACT, 1956 - SECTION 6 - WELFARE OF THE MINOR - PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION - MOTHER'S RIGHT TO CUSTODY - INDEFEASIBLE - REMARRIAGE OF MOTHER - NO BAR TO CUSTODY.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a minor, was forcibly held back by respondents, his paternal grandparents, after his mother, the petitioner, left their house due to mental torture. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the petitioner and to direct them to hand over his custody to her.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's mother was his natural guardian under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, and that the respondents were not entitled to retain him against her wishes. The court also held that the welfare of the minor was the paramount consideration in determining custody, and that in this case, the petitioner's welfare lay in remaining with his mother.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner's mother was his natural guardian and entitled to his custody? 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to retain the petitioner against the wishes of his mother? 3. Whether the welfare of the minor was the paramount consideration in determining custody?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the mother of a minor is his natural guardian in the absence of the father. 2. The respondents, as the petitioner's paternal grandparents, were not entitled to retain him against the wishes of his mother, who was his natural guardian. 3. The welfare of the minor is the paramount consideration in determining custody, and in this case, the petitioner's welfare lay in remaining with his mother.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to hand over the custody of the petitioner to his mother.

Judgment

K.C. Agrawal, J.

1. THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Vinayak Goyal through his mother Smt. Manju Goyal, wife of Sudhakar Goyal. Smt. Manju Goyal was married in 1971 to Sudhakar Goyal, son of respondents Nos. 1 and 7. Prem Prakash Goyal and Smt. Sheela Rani Goyal. One son, the petitioner Vinayak Goyal, and two daughters were born to them. Sudhakar Goyal died in February 1979. At the time of his death, Sudhakar Goyal was posted at Uttar Kashi as Executive Engineer. After his death, Smt. Manju Goyal along with the petitioner and her two daughters returned to respondents 1 and 2, her in-laws, at Ghaziabad. Since then, she had been living along with her children with them.

2. THE present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Habeas Corpus commanding the respondents to produce the petitioner Vinayak Goyal and to direct them to hand over his custody to Smt. Manju Goyal was filed on 28-4-1981, on the allegations that Smt. Manju Goyal, the mother of the petitioner, had to leave the respondents' house on account of the mental torture meted out to her by Respondents 1 and 2. THE allegation made further was that the petitioner was forcibly held back and not allowed to accompany his mother on 20-4-1981. THE petitioner claimed that being the mother, she was the natural guardian of her son Vinayak Goyal, and that she was entitled to his custody. Holding back of the petitioner from his mother Smt. Manju Goyal amounted to illegal detention and, as such, she was entitled to a direction being issued to the respondents to hand over the petitioner to her.

Pursuant to the order issued on 29-4-1981, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner in the Court on 14-5-1981, the respondents produced him in the Court and also filed a counter-affidavit controverting the allegations made in the writ petition. This was followed by filing a supplementary counter-affidavit by the respondents, which was replied by Smt. Manju Goyal.

3. THE submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner was that Smt. Manju Goyal was the natural guardian of the petitioner, who was aged about 8 years and, as such, she was entitled to his custody. THE petitioner's contention was that the respondents had illeglly withheld the petitioner against the wishes of his guardian Smt. Manju Goyal and, therefore, she was entitled to his custody. THE case argued on behalf of the petitioner was that his unlawful detention from Smt. Manju Goyal, who was legally entitled to his custody, was to be regarded as equivalent to unlawful imprisonment of the minor.

4. SECTION 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act lays down the list of persons who can be the natural guardian of a Hindu minor. Clause (a) of SECTION 6 provides that in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl- father, and after him, the mother. In the instant case, the father is, admittedly, dead. That being so, the mother Smt. Manju Goyal is the natural guardian of the petitioner. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2, who are the grand father and mother of the petitioner, have his custody. They are, however, not the guardian, and, as such, are not entitled to retain him against the wishes of his mother Smt. Manju Goyal,

Sri R. P. Goyal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, raised several questions in support of the respondents' case for defeating this petition of habeas corpus. The first argument was that the petition had not been filed by Smt. Manju Goyal on her own but had been preferred in this Court at the instigation of her relations. Counsel contended that the petition was the result of bad relationship between the father and father-in-law of Smt. Manju Goyal and the same had not been filed for vindication of any right by Smt. Manju Goyal herself, and, therefore, the same was liable to be dismissed on title ground of being not a bona fide one. The submission does not impress us. Smt. Manju Goyal is a Graduate, she can be presumed to know the conseq





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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