See Uttarakhand HC judgment below. What idiocy in name of welfare of child! If a child runs away from home, does the court equate “child’s wish” =”welfare of child” and child should then live as an orphan because effectively that is what child wished for in practical terms? Or does the court rule away minor child’s wish and be returned to parents?
Did the court consider the following facts?
- Child is only 6 years old, not of age where she can express a considered preference.
- Fact of crying of a 6 years old girl in front of a unfamiliar court room in unfamiliar crowd should be given only that much significance as is required in the context.
- Courts are implicitly saying they can be manipulated by either parent (mostly mothers) into poisoning or influencing a child’s mind. Just make sure you bring child in front of court and make her cry, the rest of job is done!
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2010
Popendra Datt Painuly,
S/o Sri Purshottam Datt Painuly,
R/o Tehri Visthapit Basti, Village Pathri, Near Pathri Railway Station, Tehsil and District Haridwar. .Appellant.
1. Smt. Sunita,
D/o Sri Shyam Lal Ratudi,
C/o Shanti Prasad Kotiyal,
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues
R/o Gali No. 6, Haridwar Road, I.D.P.L. Durga Mandir Rishikesh, P.S. Rishikesh, District Dehradun.
2. Km. Ritu, D/o Popendra Datt Painuly, Through her guardian Mother Smt. Sunita, D/o Sri Shyam Lal Ratudi, C/o Shanti Prasad Kotiyal, I.D.P.L. Durga Mandir, Rishikesh, P.S. Rishikesh, District Dehradun. ..Respondents.
Present:- Sri Vivek Shukla, Advocate for the appellant.
Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)
1. This is Delay Condonation Application No. 10753 of 2010 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal against order dated 29.3.2010, passed by Additional Judge, Family Court, Rishikesh in Misc. Case No. 4 of 2008 (G & W).
3. There is delay of 232 days, which is sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed by the appellant. The Delay Condonation Application No. 10753 of 2010 is allowed, and delay is condoned.
4. Also heard on admission, and perused the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by trial court, whereby the application for custody of female child to the appellant (father) is declined.
5. Brief facts of the case are that appellant Popendra Dutt Painuly got a decree of divorce against his wife Smt. Sunita (respondent no. 1) vide judgment and order dated 3.7.2007 passed by Judge, Family Court, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 33 of 2007. It appears that two children (both female) had born out of the wedlock, and they were living with their mother. An application was moved before the Additional Judge, Family Court, Haridwar for custody of child Kumari Ritu, aged 6 years, by the father (present appellant).
6. The impugned order shows that respondent Smt. Sunita brought Kumari Ritu to give the custody of the child to the present appellant in the court. But the child started crying and insisted that she would not leave company of her maternal grand-father, with whom her mother is living. Keeping in mind the interest of the child, the trial court rejected the application for custody of child, moved by the father.
7. It is a settled principle of law that in the matters of custody of children, the paramount consideration is the interest of the child. It is a case of custody of a minor female child, aged 6 years, who expressed before the court that she is not inclined to go to with her father, and insisted that she would live with her maternal grand- father, where she is living with her mother. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any illegality in the order dated 29.3.2010 passed by the trial court on the application, moved by the divorcee husband (father of the child).
8. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed summarily with the observation that the appellant is not barred from moving fresh application in the changed circumstances of the case, for the custody of the child.
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 23.12.2010