Supreme Courtroom Quashes FIR In opposition to Father For Taking Away Son From Mom’s Custody
The Supreme Court of on Thursday quashed a First Information Report which was registered by the Ghaziabad Police Station against a father for secretly taking away his son from his mother’s custody four years back.
During the hearing, Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia orally asked,
“In a matter like this why should there be FIR and criminal charges? You will be actually putting burden on your normal criminal courts. What kind of FIR is this? The Father has taken the custody of the child. Therefore, he is supposed to be guilty of what? We’ll quash the FIR on the condition that he will take care of the child, whatever is supposed to be the financial expenditure for school education, the father will take care.”
The Court was considering an appeal plea moved by the father seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. During the hearing, the bench pointed out that matters in custody, three aspects are often looked into,
“First, we need to take the view of the child into account meaning, what it good for him. Second, if we grant custody to A instead of B, what kind of environment the child will be exposed to. The third factor we take into account is, whether the child a boy for girl, the mental frame and physical comfort level.”
The Court was told that at present the child is 14 years old and lives with his two elder siblings who are older to him by at least 10 years(mother has passed away). The Court was also apprised of the fact that when the appellant father first moved the Allahabad High Court four years back, the child, in an interview with the High Court informed that he did not want to go with his father and that he would be happy in the then existing setup.
When Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash made submissions for custody of the child, the bench said,
“Move any guardianship court. Why file a habeus corpus petition?
“The mother died. The Father is the only guardian. It may cause trouble to the children”, she submitted.
“We will not entertain this. We will reserve your right and dispose of the matter,” the Court said.
At this point, the court was informed that the father is not seeking custody of the child.
“I am not seeking for custody, milord”, the senior advocate submitted.
Then, the court asked Prakash,
“You are more concerned about the custody of child or quashing of the FIR?”
“Quashing of the FIR. But if the child wants to live with the elder siblings, I am fine with it”, came the reply.
To this effect, the order passed by the Bench recorded,
“Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant submits that her client is not pressing for custody of the child in these proceedings, he may initiate appropriate proceedings if he wishes so. However, as father of the child, appellant has to take care of the education and other expenditure.The counsel submits that the father is willing to contribute 20,000 per month.After considering all the allegations in the FIR and totality of the circumstances, in our view, the ends of justice would demand that the concerned FIR be quashed . Ordered accordingly.”
With these observations, the Court disposed of the plea.