Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 476 (JK)

Manmohan Singh v. S. Tajinder Singh

2008-12-04

SUNIL HALI

body2008
1. The petitioner has sought temporary custody of his daughter namely Ishita (Gudia) age about four years. The wife of the petitioner namely Smt. Iqbal Kour committed suicide on 13-3-2005 in which petitioner was implicated as a accused and is facing trial under Section 306 RPC. 2. His grievance is that the respondents, who are maternal grand parents of the minor child have taken her custody. Petitioner states that being a natural guardian, of the minor child, he is entitled to her custody. 3. This prayer of the petitioner was resisted by the respondents stating that the petitioner was involved in heinous and gruesome crime, punishable under Section 306/498-A/34 RPC, and the child being minor was already in the custody of the respondents. Even though the petitioner is the natural guardian, but that is not the only ground to give the custody to the petitioner. The paramount interest is the welfare of the minor. The trial court vide order dated 4-12-2007 has dismissed the application of the petitioner. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is contended by Mr. Sethi that the father is a natural guardian under law and is entitled to custody of the minor child. He further states that the child is entitled to know her father, so, the father is also entitled to see and know the minor child. The law always takes care of the fact that while entrusting guardianship of the minor, the welfare of the minor is very important. 5. It is under these circumstances that the natural guardian can be excluded if the minors welfare is not protected in the custody of the father. The present case undoubtedly the petitioner is facing trial under Section 306 RPC and the outcome of the case is yet to be known. 6. Second aspect is that the parental grand father and grand mother are taking care of the minor child. She requires an emotional back up and care which under the present circumstances can be given only by the respondents. I say so because the petitioners fate still hangs imbalance. In case the petitioner is convicted this will again disturb psychology of the child. She requires an emotional back up and care which under the present circumstances can be given only by the respondents. I say so because the petitioners fate still hangs imbalance. In case the petitioner is convicted this will again disturb psychology of the child. Therefore, I do not accept the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to have the custody of the minor child, being the natural guardian, as it will not be in the interest of the minor child under present facts and circumstances. So far as second direction of the court that the petitioner should meet the minor child, I do not find any difficulty in accepting and confirming what has been said by the trial court. It will not be proper at this stage to permit the father to take the child to his home even for a short period. 7. I, therefore, dismiss this revision petition alongwith connected CMP. Record of the trial court be transmitted back forthwith.