Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court

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