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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.