"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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

Similar News