Mere Reproduction Of Evidence Can Never Be Equated With Appreciation: Karnataka High Court Quashes Penalty Against Govt Employee Accused Cannot Repeatedly Send Cheque To FSL Till Favourable Report Is Obtained: Kerala High Court In NI Act Case Succession Certificate Cannot Be Issued For Gold Jewels Pledged With Bank, Applies Only To Debts And Securities: Madras High Court Order 11 Rule 14 CPC | Court Cannot Direct Production Of Documents Without Ascertaining They Are In Party's Possession: Calcutta High Court Undertrial Prisoners Don't Suffer 'Civil Death', Retain Fundamental Right To Alienate Property From Jail: Rajasthan High Court Direction For Reasonable Annual Enhancement Of Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Merely Preserves Its Real Value Against Inflation: Delhi High Court Testimony Of Sole Interested Witness Must Be Of 'Sterling Quality' To Base Conviction: Patna High Court Acquits Murder Convict Failure To Communicate Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Constitutionally Infirm, Accused Entitled To Bail: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 482 CrPC Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Framing Charge Under SC/ST Act, Appeal Lies Under Section 14A: Tripura High Court Disputed Questions Of Fact Regarding Title And Forged Documents Cannot Be Decided Under Article 226: Telangana High Court Matter To Be Enquired By Bar Council: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Lawyer's PILs With Costs For Suppressing Attorney-Client Relationship BDA Cannot Arbitrarily Reverse Resolutions Passed To Comply With Judicial Directives: Karnataka High Court Section 52A NDPS Act: Mere Non-Compliance Does Not Automatically Vitiate Trial Unless Evidence Is Doubtful: Punjab & Haryana High Court Seniority Must Be Determined From Date Of Substantive Appointment, Not Ad-Hoc Service: Allahabad High Court Uncorroborated Testimony Of Drug Inspector Cannot Form Sole Basis For Conviction Under Drugs Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Suppression Of Adverse Facts Strikes At Root Of Equitable Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court Denies Injunction In HUF Property Dispute

Father Cannot Be Booked for Kidnapping His Own Child: Bombay High Court

05 September 2024 5:56 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, clarified that a father cannot be accused of kidnapping his own child. The judgment, dated 06th October 2023, quashed an FIR lodged against Shri Ashish Mule, who was accused of kidnapping his 3-year-old son.

Justice Vinay Joshi, in his oral judgment, stated that a father, being the natural guardian, cannot be booked for taking away his own minor child from the custody of the mother. The case revolved around whether a father could be charged with kidnapping for taking his own minor son from the mother’s custody.

The Court observed, “In absence of any prohibition by the order of the competent Court, the applicant father cannot be booked for taking away his own minor child from the custody of his mother.” The judgment referred to Section 361 of the IPC and Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, concluding that the father is a “natural guardian” and a “lawful guardian” along with the mother.

The Court also referred to similar precedents set by the Orissa, Kerala, Karnataka, Punjab and Haryana, and Allahabad High Courts. Justice Joshi remarked, “The effect of natural father taking away the child from custody of the mother in real sense amounts to taking a child from the lawful guardianship of the mother to the another lawful guardianship of the father.”

In light of these observations, the Court held that continuing the prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. Consequently, the FIR lodged against Shri Ashish Mule for the offense punishable under Section 363 of the IPC was quashed and set aside.

Legal experts believe that this ruling sets a significant precedent and clarifies the legal position on guardianship and custody matters involving parents.

Date of Decision: 6 October 2023

Shri Ash ish VS State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News