Revision petition dismissing order granting interim custody of minor to mother for 15 days. Court held interactive questioning improper after prior guardian judge interaction.
Revision petition dismissed; interim custody order affirmed for 15 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CR No.4019 of 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.4019 of 2014 Date of decision:04.06.2014
Ravi Kumar
....Petitioner
Versus
Manju
....Respondent
Present:- Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.K. Raura, Advocate for the caveator/respondent.
S.S.SARON, J.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitionerhusband against the order dated 27.05.2014 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Guardian Judge, Chandigarh, whereby interim custody of the minor son of the parties, namely, Shourya is to be given to Manju - respondent, who is his mother, from 5.6.2014 at 2.00 p.m. till 20.06.2014 at 2.00 p.m. On the latter date and time, the respondent is to produce the minor before the learned Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh for handing over custody of the minor child back to the petitioner.
The parties on their own solemnized their marriage on 26.03.2006, according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. It was an inter caste marriage. The parents of the respondent, it is alleged were not happy with the marriage and they always threatened the petitioner that they would not allow them to live together. From their marriage,
Kadian Savita 2014.06.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.4019 of 2014
2
the parties have a son namely Shourya, who was born on 01.01.2007. He is 7 ½ years old and presently, he is in custody of the petitioner. There are various litigations going on and pending between the parties including a petition under Section 7, 9, 17 and 25 of the Gurdians and Wards Act, 1890. During the pendency of the petition, under the Guardian Wards Act, the interim custody of the minor has been given to the respondent for 15 days.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the minor is absolutely unhappy with the respondent and he does not want to go with her. He has strenuously urged that this Court may interact with the minor and ascertain that the minor does not want to go with the respondent. It is further submitted that the minor has a dislike for his mother (respondent). Besides, the respondent is a working lady and would not be able to look after and take care of him.
Learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent has opposed the prayer. It is submitted that the minor in fact has great love and affection for his mother (respondent). In fact, the petitioner had stealthily taken the minor from the house of the respondent while she was at work.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has objected to the same and submitted that this is factually incorrect. However, learned counsel for the respondent reiterates the same.
Be that as it may, the only dispute is that the custody of
Kadian Savita 2014.06.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.4019 of 2014
3
the minor is to be given to the mother for a period of 15 days and mother would be liable to produce the child before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh on 20.06.2014 at 2.00 p.m. sharp.
After considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.5.2014 passed by the learned Guardian Judge. The learned Guardian Judge, had interacted with the child in his chambers and the child had stated that he was not willing to go with his mother. The learned Guardian Judge opined that the possibility of the child being tutored could not be ruled out and a 7 ½ years old child was not in a position to fully understand the nature of the dispute.
It would, therefore, be injudicious at this stage again to question the minor as to whether he is willing to go with his mother or not. The learned Guardian Judge has already carried out the exercise only on 27.05.2014. It would, therefore, be improper again to subject the minor to questioning. Learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the respondent has taken 15 days leave from her work to be with her minor child. Therefore, it would be in the interest of the minor that he meets his mother for a period of 15 days so as to have her love and affection as well. The parties themselves are in various litigations but for that they do have a common ground of the minor and at some stage the possibility of amicably settling the matter for the sake of the minor cannot be ruled out. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient to hand
Kadian Savita 2014.06.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
CR No.4019 of 2014
4
over the custody of the minor to his mother for a period of 15 days for which no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. Therefore, no interference is warranted with the impugned order. However, any observations made herein shall not be construed an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case pending between the parties.
The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
June 04, 2014 savita
(S.S.SARON) JUDGE
Kadian Savita 2014.06.05 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh
3 issues framed by the court
Order granting interim custody of minor to mother for 15 days to be challenged in revision.
Whether interactive questioning of minor for custody preference is injudicious after prior interaction.
Whether interfered with Guardian Judge's order granting temporary custody to mother.
Ravi Kumar
Manju
S.S. Saron
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
