Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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