Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

SMT PRIYANKA CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF RAJ AND ORS

Rajasthan High Court

Jun 27, 2017

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The petition was filed by the mother of a two-year-old child seeking custody on the basis that she is the natural guardian. The case proceeded with the mother requesting custody, and the father, respondent no.4, produced the child in court. The court temporarily handed custody to the mother for one hour under supervision and scheduled further proceedings for the following day, directing the father to produce the child again in court.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the mother, as the natural guardian of a child below five years, is entitled to custody of the child.
Whether the court should exercise its parens-patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant custody to the mother.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The mother is the natural guardian of the child under five years of age.
Custody should be granted to the mother by exercising the court's parens-patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Relied on the judgment of Gurmeet Kaur Batth vs. State of Punjab and Ors., delivered by Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia.
Also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001(5) SCC 247.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondents' arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Gurmeet Kaur Batth vs. State of Punjab and Ors.	Establishes that the mother is the natural guardian of a child below five years.	Used to support the petitioner's claim for custody on the basis of natural guardianship.
Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr. Rukhsana, 2001(5) SCC 247	Supports the exercise of parens-patriae jurisdiction by the court under Article 226 for child custody matters.	Relied upon to justify the court's jurisdiction and intervention in custody matters.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court recognized the legal principle that the mother is the natural guardian of a child below five years, as established in the cited precedent. It acknowledged the court's parens-patriae jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to intervene in child custody matters. Exercising this jurisdiction, the court temporarily granted custody of the child to the mother for a limited period under supervision to allow her to spend time with the child. The court ensured protective measures by directing police presence to prevent removal of the child from court during this period. The matter was adjourned for further consideration, with directions for the father to produce the child again.

Holding and Implications

The court temporarily granted custody of the child to the mother for one hour under court supervision to enable her to spend time with the child. The custody of the child remains with the father, who is directed to produce the child for further proceedings. The case was adjourned for continued hearing the following day.

The decision directly affects the parties by allowing temporary custody to the mother without altering the existing custody arrangement permanently. No new legal precedent was established by this order.

Show all summary ...

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYAS Order 27/06/2017 The present petition has been filed by mother of a two years child. It is prayed therein that mother is natural guardian and hence, she is entitled to the custody of the child.

Mr. Rajesh Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment, Gurmeet Kaur Batth vs. State of Punjab and Ors., rendered by one of us, Mr.

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J., as he was then Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court. It is urged by the counsel that the mother is natural guardian of child below five years and hence, custody of the child be handed over to mother by exercising parens-patriae jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Syed Saleemuddin vs. Dr.

Rukhsana, 2001(5) SCC 247.

In pre-lunch session, we requested Mr. B.N. Sandhu, AAG to ensure that the child is not taken away from the (2 of 2) [HC-93/2017] jurisdiction of this Court.

In post lunch session, Mr. Anil Upman has caused appearance on behalf of the respondents.

Mr. Deepak Chaturvedi, the respondent no.4, father of the child has produced the child in the court. Mr. Anil Upman the learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for an adjournment to argue the matter.

We accept the prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner that mother should spend some time with the child. For one hour, custody of the child has been handed over to the mother. She is directed to remain present in the court along with the child.

Mr. Rajesh Singh, SHO, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur (Souht) who is present in the court, is directed to ensure that child is not taken away from the court for a period of one hour, for which we have permitted the mother to spend time with the child.

Court shall take up the matter after one hour.

(VIJAY KUMAR VYAS)J. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

Mak/- List this case tomorrow i.e. on 28.6.2017, for further proceedings. The custody of the child has been handed over to the respondent no.4. He is directed to produce the child tomorrow in the court.