1. Petition seeking direction to Family Court to decide application for visitation rights and medical records of minor child. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 9522
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Jagmohan Bansal, J
Bhupinder Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Pritpal Kaur – Respondent
CWP-10501-2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Daya Chand Sharma
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Daya Chand Sharma
The High Court, exercising powers under Articles 226/227, will not substitute itself for the trial court to examine the authenticity of evidence or forged documents when a competent court is already seized of the matter.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226/227 of the Constitution - Interference in pending proceedings - High Court is not inclined to examine the authenticity of documents or evidence when the matter is already pending before a competent Family Court, which is best positioned to adjudicate the grievances in accordance with law. (Para 5)
(B) Guardians and Wards Act - Visitation and Medical Records - Dispute over forged medical records of a minor child - The appropriate remedy lies in the adjudication by the trial court rather than seeking directions via writ petition for verification of evidence. (Para 4, 5)
Issues: Whether the High Court should intervene under Articles 226/227 to verify the authenticity of medical documents in a pending guardianship matter.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges respondent filing forged medical documents; Family Court relying on them without verification. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Court does not find it appropriate to examine authenticity of alleged forged documents under Article 226/227. (Para 5 )
4. High Court under Article 226/227 should not examine forged document authenticity in pending family court proceedings. (Para 5 )
5. Disposed of; Family Court to expeditiously adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. (Para 5 , 6 )
6. Can a High Court under Article 226/227 examine the authenticity of allegedly forged documents in pending family court proceedings?
No, the High Court does not find it appropriate to examine such authenticity; the Family Court being competent should look into the grievance. (Para 5 )
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to learned Additional District Judge, Sonipat to decide his application dated 16.03.2026 in a time bound manner. He is further seeking direction to learned Family Court, Sonipat to ensure production/verification of complete medical records of the minor child. He is also seeking direction to respondents for independent medical examination of the minor child.
2. The petitioner is a Canadian citizen who solemnized marriage with respondent No.1-Pritpal Kaur according to Sikh rites. The petitioner submits that due to marital discord they started living separate. One girl child was born out of this wedlock on 17.12.2024. Respondent No.1 during pre-natal screening was diagnosed with Group-B Streptococcus infection as well as Thalassemia. Despite the medical reports, respondent No.1 chose to deliver the child in an Ayurvedic Clinic at Sonipat. He has no access to the child's medical records or health condition. He has filed application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 before learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Sonipat seeking visitation rights and to ensure access to medical information and decision pertaining to well-being of the child which is pending before the Court for 09.04.2026. Learned Family Court on 07.07.2025 directed respondent No.1 to produce child along with medical document but respondent No.1 did not comply with said order. He filed application seeking parenting time. Learned Family Court vide order dated 02.01.2026 directed respondent No.1 to hand over to petitioner medical records of minor child. Despite orders of the learned Family Court, respondent No.1 has not supplied him correct medical records of the child.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent is filing forged documents and learned Family Court is relying upon those documents without verifying authenticity of those documents. This Court should intervene while exercising power under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India.
4. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner filed various applications with respect to visiting rights and medical record of his daughter. The applications were duly considered and adjudicated by Family Court. The matter is still pending between the parties. The petitioner claims that respondent is filing forged documents especially with respect to medical records of his daughter. The doctor is denying his signatures, thus, reports submitted by respondents are patently forged.
5. This Court while exercising power under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not find it appropriate to examine authenticity of alleged forged documents. The matter is pending before the learned Family Court, Sonipat and this Court is sanguine that learned Family Court, Sonipat being competent Court would look into petitioner's grievance and proceed in accordance with law. To resolve the dispute, learned Family Court may expeditiously adjudicate the matter.
6. Disposed of.
