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

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Supreme Court clarified on how to determine if an allegation of fraud falls under “Fraud Exception” to Arbitrability

In AVITEL POST STUDIOZ LIMITED & ORS. vs HSBC PI HOLDINGS (MAURITIUS) LIMITED, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal from the interlocutory judgment and order passed in the appeal under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the Bombay High Court in a dispute between HSBC and Avitel India. HSBC had alleged that the Appellants had committed fraud by siphoning off the funds provided by them. As the agreement entered into by HSBC and the Appellants contained arbitration clause, HSBC approached the Singapore Arbitration Centre and the arbitration committee so formed executed award in favour of HSBC who filed application before the Bombay High Court for execution of the award. The Appellants contended objected to the award on various grounds and further argued that as fraud has been alleged, the dispute cannot be arbitrated.  The Supreme Court has held that “serious allegations of fraud” as a ground for exemption from arbitral proceedings arise only if either o...
Post a Comment
Read more