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

Registrar cannot remove trademark from record without notice to trademark holder

In Kleenage Products (India) Private Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, the petitioner had applied for registration of trademark ‘KLITOLIN’ which was accepted and from 1988 to 2009, the said trademark was renewed multiple times. The trademark was due for renewal on August 21, 2009, but the petitioner failed to tender application for renewal.  It was, thereafter, revealed that the trademark is likely to be removed from the register. The petitioner contended that the Registrar of Trademarks (respondent No.1) also failed to issue the requisite mandatory notice in Form O-3 to him (the registered proprietor) under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The Bombay High Court allowed the petition holding that any such removal can only be possible if prior notice, mandatory under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1999, has been given Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/removal-registered-trademarks-cant-done-without-giving-prior-notice-registered-proprie...

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...

Loss of earning capacity, and not percentage of disability, must decide compensation, says HC

While computing compensation claims of accident victims, the victim's loss of earning capacity shall outweigh the percentage/extent of his disability, the Madras high court has felt. Justice R Mahadevan, enhancing the compensation payable to an injured driver by Rs 2 lakh, said: "In cases for compensation, it is not the disability, which is partial or total, alone that matters, it is the loss in earning capacity as a result of accident that is to be considered." R Murali, driver of a mixed concrete vehicle, met with an accident in January 2009 and suffered injuries in hip, right leg and ankle. He claimed loss of 100% earning capacity and sought appropriate compensation along with 12% interest rate. However, as the disability certificate issued by a doctor pegged the percentage of his disability at 60%, the deputy commissioner of labour-II, awarded Rs 3.12 lakh as compensation, by fixing the monthly income at Rs 4,000. Aggrieved by the poor package, Murali filed the...