Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1344 (PNJ)

Nathi Ram v. Usha Rani

2012-10-01

L.N.MITTAL

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - C. M. No. 24801-C-II of 2012 : Allowed as prayed for. Main Case : 1. Grandparents of the minor Lavish Kumar have filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 13.09.2012 passed by Guardian Judge, Jagadhri, thereby directing the petitioners herein to hand over interim custody of the minor to respondent Usha Rani, who is mother of the minor. 2. Respondent herein was married with Satish Kumar – son of petitioners herein. Unfortunately, Satish Kumar has since died. Case of the respondent mother is that she was turned out of matrimonial home by the petitioners herein on 29.08.2011 and the minor was retained forcibly by the petitioners against her wishes. Accordingly, the mother has filed guardian petition seeking custody of the minor. She also filed application for interim custody of the minor during pendency of the petition. The petitioners herein opposed the main petition as well as application for interim custody of the minor alleging that mother of the minor herself left the matrimonial home on 29.08.2011 after effecting compromise in Panchayat and voluntarily leaving the child with the petitioners. Learned Guardian Judge, vide impugned order, has ordered interim custody of the minor to be handed over to the mother. Feeling aggrieved, grandparents have filed this revision petition to challenge the said order. 3. I have heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. 4. Counsel for the petitioners contended that instead of granting interim custody, the Guardian Judge should have finally decided the main petition. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Surjit Singh vs. Joginder Kaur reported as 1990 (2) HLR 213. The contention is completely misconceived. In that case, the dispute was between father and mother of the minor children. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, this Court directed that main petition shall be finally decided by the Guardian Court within three months, and therefore, it was observed that the main petition should have been disposed of expeditiously. In the instant case, however, the guardian petition is at initial stage. Moreover, the dispute is between the mother of the minor and grandparents of the minor. In addition to it, the age of minor is very tender. In the instant case, however, the guardian petition is at initial stage. Moreover, the dispute is between the mother of the minor and grandparents of the minor. In addition to it, the age of minor is very tender. Counsel for the petitioner states that the minor was born on 27.09.2010. The minor is thus aged only two years and was aged only one year when the guardian petition was filed by the mother on 24.10.2011. Keeping in view the said tender age of the minor, he needs the warmth and love and affection of the lap of his mother. The Guardian Judge has rightly exercised the discretion to hand over the interim custody of the minor to his mother, keeping in view the welfare of the minor, which is of paramount consideration in such matters. 5. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that the respondent mother voluntarily left the minor with the petitioners by effecting compromise dated 29.08.2011. This contention is also untenable at this stage. The respondent has alleged that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by the petitioners on 29.08.2011 and the child was forcibly kept by the petitioners and signatures of the respondent mother were obtained on blank papers. At this stage, nothing can be commented upon regarding the alleged writing. Moreover, even if the said writing is assumed to be genuine for the sake of argument only, even then the said writing would have no bearing or fetters on the power of Guardian Court to determine the question of interim or final custody of the minor because the only paramount consideration in such matters is the welfare of the minor. As already noticed herein before, in the instant case, the minor child being of very tender age, his welfare lies in his custody with his mother at this tender age immediately. 6. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that the Guardian Judge has rightly exercised the discretion while ordering handing over of interim custody of the minor to the mother by the grandparents. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Guardian Judge so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the Guardian Judge so as to call for interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed herein before shall have any bearing on merits of the main petition, which is still pending before the Guardian Judge. ---------0.B.S.0------------