The couple, belonging to Sunni Muslim sect, got married in March 1997. The mother sought custody of the son from his father. The order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Modas, in Criminal Revision Application No. The Letters Patent Bench on appeal seems to us to have erred in reversing him on grounds, which we are unable to appreciate. During the discussion it appeared that Smt. In exercise of this jurisdiction, which is derived not by reason of any statute but as an inseparable attribute of judicial power of the State, the court should always look to the welfare of the minor in all matters relating to its life. This is one of the legal principles that advent of capitalistic legal order did not choose to replace.
Warsha was directed to give the custody of the children to the father of the children viz. It is an admitted fact that the non-applicant Nos. The spouses had a child. In the case in hand, the applicants had not challenged the order passed by the learned J. After hearing the parties, the learned J. November 28, 2018 Case name: Reena Hazarika v.
Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the non-applicants supported the findings of the learned Addl. Warsha the wife of Narendra were present in the court with the children. Welfare of child would be best served, if she continuous to stay in custody of her father No fruitful purpose would be served by giving custody of child to mother. An order under , Guardians and is really meant to protect the minors welfare which is the primarily consideration in deciding whether or not the custody of the minor should be restored to the applicant. Court below gave no reason for allowing interim maintenance from date of application. However, it is an admitted fact that the applicant No. It appears to us that such a view is not only untenable on authorities but is clearly wrong in constitutional principle.
It has, therefore, a right to its life as guaranteed by of the Constitution. Warsha the mother, when she reached to her parents place for 3rd delivery. No 603 of 1987, Bombay High Court reported in 2 1989 D. The children not being returned, Smt. She was prevented and the children were confined in the custody of the applicant No. Sessions Judge, Washim while passing the order relied on the case of Zahirul Hassan v.
We must not merely look to the subject of the right without identifying the person over which this right is to be exercised. Being aggrieved by such observations the petitioner has filed the revision before the Learned Additional-District and Sessions Judge, Alipore contending that the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and for final custody of the child and that the child was not a suckling baby at the relevant time and the Court should have restored the custody of the child in favour of the present petitioner as he had been acquitted of the charge. In case if at all the mother wanted the custody of the children, she should have applied under the relevant provisions of the Act providing for getting custody of the minors but certainly Section 97 was not the remedy. Warsha being aggrieved by the order dated 25-1-1990 passed by J. You may post your specific query based on your facts and details to get a response from one of the Lawyers at LawRato. We need not go in details about their rival contentions of strained relations.
The case, in hand, according to the applicants the children were staying with their grandfather and grandmother and were going to the school. To get your son back, file a Writ Petition against police inaction immediately also praying for handing over the custody of your child since you are his natural guardian upto his 5 years of age,, 2. Raymon Civil Revision No 121 and 136 of 1989, Delhi High Court reported in 2 1989 D. As the non-applicants 2 and 3 were not allowed to go to their mother, naturally they were restrained and confined. Revisional Court Committed no Error of Law and Fact while Setting Aside Order of Grant of Interim Maintenance. Get Help : Marriage registration for Ahmedabad City as per New Guide lines of Govt. It has been brought to my notice that the non-applicants Nos.
It is, thus, crystal clear that though the applicant No. It is needless to say that where the question of custody of the minor is involved the type of remedy proceeded with by an applicant whether by way of an application under the Guardians and Wards Act, or by way of an application under Section 97, Cr. This is the origin of parents patriae jurisdiction of the Courts sharing in the sovereign power of the State. When the brother of Smt. Those decisions were mostly decided on their own peculiar facts. Thus, the ratio laid down in the above referred decision is that in an application for Search Warrant under Cr.
He mother is in the circumstances the best company for her. Those decisions were mostly decided on their own peculiar facts. Merely because the father loves his children and is not shown to be otherwise undesirable cannot necessarily lead to the conclusion that the welfare of the children would be better promoted by granting their custody to him as against the wife who may also be equally affectionate towards her children and otherwise equally free from blemish, and who in addition, because of her profession and financial resources, may be in a position to guarantee better health, education and maintenance for them. It is further submitted that for a search warrant under of Cr. The approach of the learned single Judge, in our view, was correct and we agree with him. The Supreme Court in Mohd Ikram v.
Father was given child custody because he has the better financial condition than the mother. This Court had granted interim relief vide order dated 13. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately, irrespective of fact whether he earns or not. The respondent's contention that the Court under the had granted custody of the two younger children to the wife on the ground of their being of tender age, no longer holds goods and that, therefore, their custody must be handed over to him appears to us to be misconceived. It should be filed where child is ordinarily residing last 6 months. Therefore, there is no force in the submission made by Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the non-applicants.