Chandigarh, March 29
The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket has dominated that claims between a minor’s pure guardians ought to ideally be examined by the Court docket of Guardian and Wards. The ruling got here because the HC dismissed a case, the place a mom filed a habeas corpus petition as “an extra simultaneous treatment” towards the daddy after accusing him of illegally and unlawfully eradicating the kid from her custody.
Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj stated: “I’m of the opinion that custody of a father as a pure guardian can’t be held unlawful or illegal except the identical is in breach of some authority or order of regulation. Availability of an alternate efficacious treatment (beneath the Guardian and Wards Act) might not be a bar to the issuance of habeas corpus. Nevertheless, competing claims between pure guardians ought to ideally be examined by the Court docket of Guardian and Wards, which is extra geared up to find out the welfare of the kid and affords full alternative to the contesting events to determine their claims.”
Justice Bhardwaj noticed the query for consideration was whether or not a writ of habeas corpus ought to be issued when the proceedings for a minor’s custody had been pending between the mother and father earlier than the Court docket of Guardian and Wards — a household court docket — and an order vesting the minor’s interim custody within the father’s favour had already been handed.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted the difficulty was not relating to the maintainability of a writ within the nature of habeas corpus “because the situation as as to whether availability of an alternate efficacious treatment (beneath the Guardian and Wards Act) would prohibit the train of a writ jurisdiction effectively settled to the impact that it’s not a bar”.
Justice Bhardwaj asserted the scenario can be solely completely different the place the petitioner had already taken recourse to a statutory treatment (beneath the Act) and had additionally filed a writ of habeas as an extra simultaneous treatment, which occurred to be the place within the prompt case.
Referring to judgments on the difficulty, Justice Bhardwaj noticed the regulation conferred a minor baby’s custody with father. As such, it couldn’t be held to be unlawful or illegal. It was evident that the kid’s interim custody had additionally been vested with the daddy. As such, he couldn’t be accused of retaining the kid in violation of an order handed by a reliable court docket or in violation of a process recognized to regulation.
Justice Bhardwaj concluded the availing of simultaneous treatment would itself be a purpose for writ court docket to be sluggish in intervention as disputed questions of info ought to ideally be resolved after affording the events efficient alternative to guide their proof.
The ruling got here because the HC dismissed a case, the place a mom filed a habeas corpus petition as “an extra simultaneous treatment” towards the daddy after accusing him of illegally and unlawfully eradicating the kid from her custody.