Section 9 A&C Act Relief Available Until Award Is Actually Enforced, Even After It Becomes Enforceable: Telangana High Court Matrimonial Litigations Must Not Degenerate Into Contests Of Mutual Humiliation By Weaponising Private Images: Delhi High Court Unarmed Witnesses’ Inaction Against Armed Assailants Justified By Instinct Of Self-Preservation; Testimony Cannot Be Discarded: Allahabad High Court Ocular Evidence Outweighs Motive: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Based On Reliable Eyewitness Testimony Arrest Illegal If Written 'Grounds Of Arrest' Not Furnished To Accused; Communication Of Mere 'Reasons' Insufficient: Bombay High Court Absence Of Territorial Jurisdiction No Ground To Quash FIR At Threshold If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Calcutta High Court Proof Of Demand Is Sine Qua Non For PC Act Conviction; Voice Recordings Inadmissible Without Sec 65-B Certificate: Chhattisgarh HC Section 91 IEA | Disposition Of Immovable Property Cannot Be Proved By Oral Evidence If Written Document Not Produced: Delhi High Court NRC Legacy Data Extracts Inadmissible Without Section 65B Certificate; PAN Card & EPIC Not Proof Of Citizenship: Gauhati High Court Testimony Of Injured Witness Entitled To Great Weight; Minor Contradictions Due To Lapse Of Memory Cannot Discard Prosecution Case: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Kerala High Court Remands Teacher Seniority Dispute For Fresh Consideration To Verify If Senior Teacher Relinquished Promotion Claim Receipt Of DNA Report After Testimony Doesn't Automatically Confer Right To Recall Witness For Further Cross-Examination: Madhya Pradesh High Court Possession Of 'Bhang' Not An Offence Under NDPS Act, Specific Definition Excludes It: Jharkhand High Court Acquits Man Trial Court Cannot Reject Request For Handwriting Expert Merely Because Signatures Are On Photocopies: Punjab & Haryana High Court

P&H HC Confirms Interim Custody of Minor Child to Present Caregivers, Decline to Biological Mother

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, 11th April 2023: In a significant ruling, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, in CRWP-822-2021 (O & M), has confirmed the interim custody of a minor child to the present caregivers, emphasizing the paramount consideration of the child's welfare. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, addressed allegations of abandonment and surrender of custody by the biological mother.

The factual background of the case involved the petitioner, Manisha Maheshwari, who is the biological mother of the minor child, Santosh, also known as Archit. The child had been in the custody of co-respondents No. 5 and 6, who assumed custody in May/June 2018. The petitioner had allegedly surrendered the child's custody to co-respondent No. 4 through a disputed document, Annexure R-4/1.

During the proceedings, the Court took into account the interactions with the minor child and the report of the Child Welfare Committee, Sirsa. These sources revealed that the child expressed his happiness and desire to stay with co-respondents No. 5 and 6, whom he considered as his parents. The Court emphasized the child's welfare and the best care provided by the present caregivers, as evidenced by medical records and the child's admission to a reputable school.

The petitioner's counsel relied on the judgment in Tejaswini Gaud v. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari (2019), arguing that the petitioner, as the biological mother, should be granted custody based on the child's best interests. However, the Court held that prima facie evidence suggested the petitioner's abandonment of the child and that the issue of custody should be determined by the civil court.

The Court further clarified that its decision confirmed the interim custody to the present caregivers until a final decision on custody is made by the Family Court. It cited previous judgments, including Manju Tiwari v. Dr. Rajendra Tiwari (1990) and Gippy Arora v. State of Punjab (2012), emphasizing the restoration of interim custody until the ultimate custody is determined by the appropriate authority.

The Court concluded by stating that its order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or binding on future court proceedings. It reasserted the paramount consideration of the child's welfare and the need for a comprehensive determination of custody by the competent authority.

D.D 11.04.2023

Manisha Maheshwari vs State of Haryana and others

Latest Legal News