Tag: #custody

-Report by Sejal Jethva

In this case, the custody of two children—who should live with their mother or father—is being settled between SALIM YOUSUF JAMADAR VS RESHMA SALIM JAMADAR

FACTS:

On May 19, 2010, the appellant and respondent were married in Pune in line with the customs and principles of Mohammedanism. The respondent-wife gave birth to a girl called Akira on May 16, 2014, and a son named Arsalan on September 21, 2011, both outside of marriage. Arsalan is currently about 11 years old, while Akira is about 8 years old. The respondent and her children were then violently forced out of her marital home on August 28, 2019, due to a marital quarrel. It is claimed that the children were kidnapped from the respondent’s wife’s custody at her parent’s house in Aloor by the appellant’s relatives under the guise of feeding them chocolates.

On October 11, 2021, the respondent-wife filed a case in the Omerga Court of Judicial Magistrate (First Class) under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. The court only granted the respondent-wife visitation rights, allowing her to see her children once a month in Pune at the office of the protection officer, without interfering with the minor children’s custody arrangements with their father. The respondent-wife does not contest the court’s decision to deny custody and solely grant visitation rights in the aforementioned judgment. The wife ultimately filed a procedure under Section 8 of the Guardians and Wards Act in the trial Court over the custody of minor children as a result of the marital strife between the parties.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION:

The attorney for the applicant has submitted a written statement outlining the events leading up to the Respondent’s (wife) filing of this application under Section 8 of the Guardians and Guardians Act. He also brought up the issue of jurisdiction, claiming that an educated trial judge had incorrectly ruled that the children had a habitual abode in Alloa based solely on inference. Welfare and child protection Concerning the query, he said that the Scientific Court had neglected to consider a few clauses in Articles 17 and 25 of the Guardians and Guardians Act.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The respondent-wife vehemently disagreed with the arguments put out by the knowledgeable Attorney representing the appellant’s spouse. He defended the contested order and argued that the learned trial court correctly dismissed the husband’s complaint about jurisdiction. He emphasised that although the children were enrolled in an English-medium school in Aloor, the appellant-husband requested that they attend an Urdu-medium school instead, which is unquestionably dangerous for the development of young children.

He did reasonably acknowledge, however, that up until this point, the respondent-wife had not requested maintenance from her husband. He contends that the respondent, who does not leave the house for employment, is better able to provide for the children’s needs because the appellant is unable to do so because of his continued absence from the home for work. He called for the appeal to be dismissed as a result.

JUDGEMENT:

1. Upon reading the contested decision, it is clear that this aspect of the highest consideration was not discussed in detail by the competent court, given the applicant’s capacity. It can be seen that the entire judgment discusses the jurisdictional aspect and the Labor Court only made a puzzling statement on this aspect of the child’s well-being in the last paragraph. , does not argue whether it is fit to act in the best interest of children by providing them with a good future education and the facilities they need. Under guardianship laws, custody of minors remains with the mother until the age of five. However, in this case, both minor children are over 5 years of her age. Their son Arsalan is 11 years old and their daughter Akira is 8 years old. Therefore, with their best interests in mind, they must be provided with a good education, safety, and other conveniences. On the other hand, the applicant’s husband discovered that he was not at home due to his work and his wife. Therefore, she is promoted to a higher level, giving her time to grow and care for her children. However, feeding a minor child is not only about giving the child time to grow, but other aspects such as financial support, a good atmosphere, and safety are also important. 

2. As a result, the appeal is upheld, and the contested order from the learned District Judge-1, Omerga, District Osmanabad in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 45/2020 is revoked and reversed. There is no expense order.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/42ye1cA

-Report by Umang Kanwat

Family law conceptions still depend on parental control and the idea of “the family” as a unit, while privacy theories are mostly adult-centered and cannot be meaningfully applied to minors. In the recent case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Versus Ajinkya Arun Firodia, the Supreme Court determined that it could not forgo the rights and best interests of a third party, namely the child, in order to grant one of the parties to the marriage the benefit of a fair trial.

FACTS:

In the current case of Aparna Ajinkya Firodia Vs. Ajinkya Arun Firodia involving a married couple was going through divorce proceedings suspecting that the appellant-wife was in an adulterous relationship. The husband requested the court to order a DNA test on their second child to determine if he was the biological father. The court granted the request, and this decision was upheld by the Bombay High Court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

The appellant declines to submit the kid to a DNA test in her capacity as the child’s mother and natural guardian in order to safeguard the child’s interests and welfare. She is actually acting in the child’s best interests by refusing to submit the child to a DNA test.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The respondent is not contesting the child’s legitimacy, but rather accusing the appellant-wife of adultery, and since she refused to submit the child to a DNA test, a presumption under Section 114(h) of the Evidence Actmight be made against her. In other words, he argues that Section 114(h) rather than Section 112 applies in this particular case and that the court is not required to expose the kid to a DNA test if the appellant is unwilling.

JUDGEMENT:

The Apex Court by concluding that the High Court and Family Court erred by granting the respondent’s request to subject the child to a DNA test, stated that in every instance when a parent declines to have their child undergo a DNA test, it is not prudent to infer the worst under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.

The court also emphasised that children have the right to protection from having their legal status inadvertently called into question in court. A child’s understanding of privacy could differ from an adult’s. However, merely because they are young, children should not be denied this right to shape and comprehend their sense of self. Furthermore, children have a specific right to maintain their identity under Article 8 of the Convention. Parental information is a characteristic of a child’s identity. As a result, it is forbidden to arbitrarily contest a child’s parentage in front of a court of law.

As a result, the appeal was granted. The court did add that this would not prevent the respondent-husband from presenting more evidence to support the claims he made against the appellant in the divorce petition.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3SnATqL

-Report by Sanya Luthra

The case Pawan Arora vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) deals with the petitioner being liable for keeping the substances for which he didn’t possess a suitable license which was considered unlawful and because of this the petitioner has been in custody since 4th August 2020 and Trial Court has also rejected the bail application and observed that the firm did not possess a such license which authorised them to sell those substances.

FACTS:

As a result of some secret information, a raid was conducted in the Jhuggis of Kamla Nehru Camp Kirti Nagar, New Delhi by the Narcotic Cell and because of that raid on the night of 17th and 18th June 2020 when the raid was conducted a huge amount of the consignment of psychotropic substance Tramadol, Nitrazepam based tablets and Codeine based syrups were recovered from the godown situated there. When police inquired about the same then Shravan Kumar (who was there at the time of the raid) revealed that the medicines of the godown belonged to the petitioner and his manager Chander Shekhar. With this an FIR was lodged regarding the same and Shravan Kumar was arrested at that time, later on, it was revealed that the petitioner and his manager had the office of the same substance, later on, the petitioner and his manager were also arrested, further, it was held that the license to sell and possess medicines was of Chander Shekhar. So now it is up to Delhi High Court to check the liability of the three people involved and also to grant bail or not.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

It was put forward by the petitioner that the authenticity of the secret information is doubtful and the petitioner also argued that the license to sell the following substance was there with the petitioner so he was lawful in selling those and it was also stated that these substances do not fall within Schedule I of the NDPS Act hence compliance to Chapter VII A of the NDPS Rules 1985 is not required. Instead, they fall under Schedule H-1 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Schedule H-1 has been issued under Rules 65 and 97 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the said substances which have been recovered and have been attributed to the petitioner, fall under Sr.No.20 (Codeine), No.36 (Nitrazepam) and No.45 (Tramadol), so they were emphasizing that they possess a lawful license for everything and can’t be said to conduct unlawful activities.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel from the state argued that the FSL report which has arrived also proves that the substances they were carrying include substances which they were not supposed to be sold or possessed by anyone, that’s why they were having the unlawful substances and should be punished for the same, also the license which they were having was not eligible to possess such substances.

JUDGMENT:

The Delhi High Court held that at this stage when a trial has to be conducted and will take much time and 37 witnesses have to be examined and prima facie it does seem violation of license rules and not of illegal stocking and sale of substances, without a license, so the petitioner can be released on regular bail and therefore he is released on regular bail with the sum amount of 1,00,000 as bond and two sureties with certain conditions which are that he will not leave the country, will provide his all mobile numbers, permanent address, join the investigation and will appear before the court when called.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3DHbrX1

CITATION: 2023/DHC/000688

–Report by Hans Rathi

The High Court of Delhi recently held in the case of TARUN DUTT versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. It stated that an undertrial accused cannot be made to spend the entire period of trial in custody especially when the trial is likely to take considerable time. The court reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the accused person against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. The Hon’ble Mr Justice Amit Mahajan presided over the case.

Facts:

An FIR was registered on a complaint of Shri Matadeen Gora, who alleged to have been dishonestly induced on the pretext of receiving the insurance policy bonus amount and the insurance gratuity value on the lapsed insurance policies from the year 2013 till date. He claimed that a group of people had called him from different mobile numbers claiming to be senior officials from the insurance regulatory body. They induced him by stating that the unclaimed insurance amount can be released to the complainant. On the allurement, he deposited a sum of ₹ 80 lakhs and another sum of ₹ 39 lakhs at different times. The chargesheet has already been filed in the present case. It was found that most of the money was transferred to the accounts of accused persons including one main accused herein. In a disclosure statement made by one of the accused, the present applicant was arrested on 14.01.2021. The applicant had joined the other accused persons – Arvind and Sunil, as partners in a fake insurance bonus scam and has cheated innocent victims/persons on the pretext of receiving a huge insurance policy bonus. The applicant is alleged to be the main caller who induced the complainant and impersonated himself as Senior Director of Income Tax and MCA. The co-accused Sunil was admitted on bail by an order dated 30.05.2022 passed by the learned ASJ and the co-accused Arvind was granted bail by this Court by order dated 28.02.2022, whereas one co-accused person Ratnesh Chauhan is stated to be released on interim bail granted by the learned ASJ by order dated 28.04.2022. The present appeal is filed by the main accused still in custody under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”), seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0012/2021 dated 08.01.2021 registered at Vasant Kunj. 

Petitioner’s Contentions 

Learned senior counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant was in the employment of the main accused and has been falsely implicated in the case. 13. He further submits that all the other four co-accused have been already enlarged on bail and despite that the applicant is languishing in jail and his application for grant of bail was dismissed by the Trial Court on an erroneous presumption that the applicant is likely to tinker with the ongoing investigation. In the present case, even though the FIR was registered way back in January 2021 and the chargesheet was filed long back, still even as per the prosecution there is a major part of the investigation which is still in progress. Therefore, the trial is not likely to proceed and will take a long period of time before it gets over. The Applicant is in custody for almost 2 years and has a family to look after, including a six-year-old daughter and an eleven months old son. 15. He further submits that when all the main accused persons have already been enlarged on bail, no purpose would be served by keeping the applicant in further incarceration and he is also entitled to bail on the ground of parity.

Respondent Contentions

Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the bail application and submits that the gravity of the offense and the manner in which the accused persons are found to have cheated the complainant, disentitles the Applicant of any discretion.

Judgment

The court in the present case held that undertrial prisoners cannot be detained in custody for an indefinite period. The speedy trial in the present case does not seem a possibility. Keeping the applicant in further incarceration would cause deprivation of his right to legal defence. It further reasoned that once the majority of the co-accused are out on Bail it cannot be argued that it is only the applicant against whom there is an apprehension that he will tamper with the evidence and influence the witnesses. Therefore, the court directed the appellant to be released on bail on furnishing a bail bond for a sum of ₹50,000 with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court / Duty Metropolitan Magistrate, subject to some terms and conditions.