Rukma Singh & Anr. Vs. Suhaib Ilyasi
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6120 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6120 of 2001)
Petitioner: Rukma Singh & Anr.
Respondent: Suhaib Ilyasi
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6237 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6120 of 2001)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6120 of 2001)
Judges: D.P. MOHAPATRA & SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 09, 2001
Head Note:
GUARDIANSHIP
Guardian and Wards Act, 1890
Sections 12, 9 – Interim custody – High Court restraining grandmother and aunt of child from taking custody except in accordance with law – During pendency of appeal before Supreme Court, guardian court moved – Parties agreeing to get the application decided there. Held that the appropriate court shall decide the application by 27.9.2001. Other suitable directions given. (Paras 5,6)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. In compliance with our order dt.31-08-2001, the respondent is present with the child. The appellant no. 1 is also present in court.
3. The controversy raised in this appeal relates to custody of the minor girl named ‘Aaliya’ aged about four years. The appellants are maternal grandmother and aunt (mother’s sister) of the child and the respondent is her father. The appellants have assailed the order passed by the single judge of the Delhi High Court on 11.07.2000 in which he restrained the appellants from forcibly taking custody of the child from the respondent which was confirmed by the division bench by the order dated 02.02.2001. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned single judge reads as under :
” I accordingly restrain the defendants from forcibly taking custody of the child from the plaintiff. However, this order will not in any way come in their way to take custody of the child in accordance with law. No further orders are required to be passed on this application and the same stands disposed of.”
4. During the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted before us that after the order of the division bench of the High Court was passed, the appellants have filed a case for custody of the child under the Guardian and Wards Act, which is registered as case no. 86 of 2001 on the file of Mrs. Meena Bansal Krishna, guardianship court, Delhi. In the said case, the appellants have also filed a petition seeking interim custody of the child. The case is stated to be posed on 3rd October, 2001.
5. Since the arrangement for custody of the child made by the learned single judge as confirmed by the division bench of the High Court is in the nature of interim arrangement subject to the order in a properly constituted proceeding before the competent court for taking custody of the child and such a proceeding has already been instituted before the guardianship court in which a petition for interim custody has also been filed, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order under challenge at this juncture. We are of the view that the interest of justice will be adequately served if the petition for interim custody of the child is considered by the guardianship court expeditiously and appropriate order passed. Since the matter is urgent as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is appropriate that the case is advanced and the application for interim custody is taken up without further delay. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed on the above arrangement.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judge, guardianship court, will take up the petition filed by the appellants for interim custody of the child ‘Aaliya’ in case no.86 of 2001 on 19th Sept.2001. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed that counter affidavit, if any, to the said petition will be filed in the court by 15th Sept.2001 and rejoinder, if any, will be filed by 17th Sept.2001. Learned counsel for the parties have further agreed that the parties will appear before the judge, guardianship court, Delhi on 19th Sept.2001 without any further notice from the court. The guardianship court will take up the petition for interim custody of the child on 19th Sept.2001 and dispose it of expeditiously, if possible by 27th Sept.2001.
7. The appeal is disposed of on the terms aforestated. No costs.
8. The registry will send a copy of this order to the judge, guardianship court, Delhi forthwith.
1. Leave granted.
2. In compliance with our order dt.31-08-2001, the respondent is present with the child. The appellant no. 1 is also present in court.
3. The controversy raised in this appeal relates to custody of the minor girl named ‘Aaliya’ aged about four years. The appellants are maternal grandmother and aunt (mother’s sister) of the child and the respondent is her father. The appellants have assailed the order passed by the single judge of the Delhi High Court on 11.07.2000 in which he restrained the appellants from forcibly taking custody of the child from the respondent which was confirmed by the division bench by the order dated 02.02.2001. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned single judge reads as under :
” I accordingly restrain the defendants from forcibly taking custody of the child from the plaintiff. However, this order will not in any way come in their way to take custody of the child in accordance with law. No further orders are required to be passed on this application and the same stands disposed of.”
4. During the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted before us that after the order of the division bench of the High Court was passed, the appellants have filed a case for custody of the child under the Guardian and Wards Act, which is registered as case no. 86 of 2001 on the file of Mrs. Meena Bansal Krishna, guardianship court, Delhi. In the said case, the appellants have also filed a petition seeking interim custody of the child. The case is stated to be posed on 3rd October, 2001.
5. Since the arrangement for custody of the child made by the learned single judge as confirmed by the division bench of the High Court is in the nature of interim arrangement subject to the order in a properly constituted proceeding before the competent court for taking custody of the child and such a proceeding has already been instituted before the guardianship court in which a petition for interim custody has also been filed, we are not persuaded to interfere with the order under challenge at this juncture. We are of the view that the interest of justice will be adequately served if the petition for interim custody of the child is considered by the guardianship court expeditiously and appropriate order passed. Since the matter is urgent as submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is appropriate that the case is advanced and the application for interim custody is taken up without further delay. The learned counsel for the parties are agreed on the above arrangement.
6. Accordingly, it is ordered that the judge, guardianship court, will take up the petition filed by the appellants for interim custody of the child ‘Aaliya’ in case no.86 of 2001 on 19th Sept.2001. The learned counsel for the parties have agreed that counter affidavit, if any, to the said petition will be filed in the court by 15th Sept.2001 and rejoinder, if any, will be filed by 17th Sept.2001. Learned counsel for the parties have further agreed that the parties will appear before the judge, guardianship court, Delhi on 19th Sept.2001 without any further notice from the court. The guardianship court will take up the petition for interim custody of the child on 19th Sept.2001 and dispose it of expeditiously, if possible by 27th Sept.2001.
7. The appeal is disposed of on the terms aforestated. No costs.
8. The registry will send a copy of this order to the judge, guardianship court, Delhi forthwith.
