Skip to main content

Father natural guardian of minor son in absence of mother: Bombay High Court

In the absence of mother, the father becomes the natural guardian of the minor boy, ruled the Bombay High Court recently while handing over a child's custody to his father, who was acquitted of killing his wife (the boy's mother).

A division bench of justices PV Hardas and Ajey Gadkari pronounced the judgement on a habeas corpus (produce person in court) petition filed by Satara resident Amol Pawar after his father-in-law refused to let the boy stay with him.

Pawar married Ramesh Dhotre's daughter in November 2010. Within two years of marriage, Pawar's wife died of burn injuries.

The police arrested Pawar for alleged cruelty and murder under provisions of the Indian Penal Code. After his arrest, the minor son was being looked after by Dhotre, who resides in Baramati.

In April 2013, the sessions court at Satara acquitted Pawar of all charges following which Pawar approached Dhotre seeking custody of his son. However, Dhotre didn't allow Pawar to take the child with him.

Pawar then filed a habeas corpus petition in HC through advocate Vaibhav Gaikwad. Pawar's advocate argued that the state government had not filed an appeal against Pawar's acquittal. And as natural guardian he was entitled to the child's custody.

Dhotre opposed the petition claiming that he had challenged Pawar's acquittal and the appeal was pending. His advocate Manjari Parasnis, argued that Pawar had re-married and his second wife had deserted him and hence there was no one to look after the child.

Also, the child is being well looked after and his welfare is of paramount importance while deciding on granting custody, argued Parasnis.

The judges, however, granted the child's custody to the father. The bench observed: "Since the petitioner has been acquitted and the petitioner is the natural guardian of the minor child, the petitioner cannot be deprived of obtaining the custody of his minor child."

Asking the grandfather to hand over the custody, the judges noted that he had alternate remedy under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for claiming the child's custody.

The HC observed, "The question as to whether the welfare of the minor would warrant the handing over the custody of the minor to any other person is a question which can only be decided after the evidence of the parties is recorded and certainly not in this petition."

Article referred: http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report-father-natural-guardian-of-minor-son-in-absence-of-mother-bombay-high-court-1966343

Comments

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even