IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision.:11.09.2025 Sanjogta @ Sanjogita …..Pe,,oner Vs.

Ram Chander and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Monita Mehta, Advocate for the pe(cid:23)(cid:23)oner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

Background : The present li(cid:23)ga(cid:23)on concerns the custody of a female minor child, named Nitya, born on 08.04.2020, thus now aged about 5½ years. Her parents, Rahul and Sonia, were married in 2019. Sonia (the mother) unfortunately died an unnatural death. Rahul (father of the child) and his mother Smt. Sanjogta (present pe(cid:23)(cid:23)oner and grandmother of the child) are facing trial in FIR No.102 dated 10.04.2023 under Sec(cid:23)ons 304-B/34 IPC in connec(cid:23)on with her death. Respondents No.1 and 2 herein, Ram Chander and Suresho Devi, are the maternal grandparents (nana-nani). Respondents No.3 and 4 herein, Mausam and Priyanka, are the paternal aunts (buas) of the child.

2. On a pe(cid:23)(cid:23)on filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (maternal grandparents), the Family Court, vide order dated 03.11.2023, granted cus- tody of the minor child to them and directed respondents No.3 and 4 (pa- ternal aunts) to hand over custody. The said order was challenged by re- spondents No.3 and 4 before this Court in CR No.6884 of 2023 but the same was dismissed on 16.11.2023 (Annexure P-2), thereby affirming the grant of custody to the maternal grandparents.

3. Respondent No.1 moved an applica(cid:23)on under Sec(cid:23)on 151 CPC for compliance of the order dated 03.11.2023. In reply, respondents No.3 and 4 submi=ed that the minor was no longer with them and had been placed in the custody of their mother, Smt. Sanjogta (pe(cid:23)(cid:23)oner herein). The Family Court, by way of the impugned order dated 19.08.2025, found that respondents No.3 and 4 had deliberately avoided compliance of the earlier custody order and, to frustrate the same, had handed over the child to their mother without permission of the Court.

4. The pe(cid:23)(cid:23)oner (grandmother) has assailed the order dated 19.08.2025 on the grounds that that she was not a party to the proceedings when the order dated 03.11.2023 was passed; and that as the grand- mother, she is taking proper care of the child and has a preferen(cid:23)al right over the child comparing to the maternal grandparents.

5. Heard. Under Sec(cid:23)on 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in ma=ers of custody, the welfare of the minor is the paramount con- sidera(cid:23)on. Personal law or rela(cid:23)ve seniority of claim is not decisive. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently reiterated in Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, and Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma (2015) 8 SCC 318, that custody disputes must be resolved not on strict rights of par(cid:23)es but on what best serves the welfare, security, and well-be- ing of the child. A person facing grave criminal charges in connec(cid:23)on with the unnatural death of the child’s own mother cannot ordinarily be treated as a suitable guardian, having regard to the emo(cid:23)onal and psychological welfare of the child.

6. The Family Court had granted custody to the maternal grand- parents. This Court, while dismissing CR No.6884 of 2023 on 16.11.2023, confirmed the said order. That order has a=ained finality and con(cid:23)nues to bind all par(cid:23)es. Despite the clear direc(cid:23)on, respondents No.3 and 4 avoided compliance and handed over custody to their mother (the pe(cid:23)- (cid:23)oner), without any sanc(cid:23)on of law. Such conduct is a deliberate a=empt to frustrate a lawful judicial order.

7. The conten(cid:23)on of the pe(cid:23)(cid:23)oner that she was not a party to the earlier proceedings cannot jus(cid:23)fy her present possession of custody. The determina(cid:23)ve considera(cid:23)on is the child’s welfare, not mere biological proximity. The pe(cid:23)(cid:23)oner is facing trial for offences under Sec(cid: