Smt. Koushilya Chaturvedi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2017



Shri Sunil Kumar Chopra, learned counsel for the
Shri N.S.Kirar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents

No.1 to 3/State.

Shri S.S.Dhakad, learned counsel for the respondents No.4
and 5.

Shri Sunil Kumar Chopra, learned counsel is present with
the petitioner Smt. Kaushalya Chaturvedi and her children
Garima and Monika are also present with respondents No.4 5.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner, who is mother of
Garima and Monika is claiming custody of these two minor girls
on account of she being mother. There is no dispute that both
these girls are residing with their grandfather – respondent No.4,
who is also present in the court and also to the fact that father of
these two girls and husband of the petitioner is reported to be
missing for the last 12 years. When these girls were asked with
whom they would like to go, they are of the view that their
welfare is more protected in the hands of their grandfather and
that they are not in illegal or unlawful custody with their
grandfather bur are living on their own volition and in fact, the
petitioner, who has left the house of their grandfather, is living
separately on her sweet will.

In view of such statement, it can not be said that Garima
and Monika are under unlawful custody of their grandfather and
therefore it will be appropriate that if the petitioner so advised,
she may resort to the remedy available under the Guardian And
Wards Act seeking custody of Garima and Monika.

At this point of time, respondent No.4 has given an
undertaking that he will take all the necessary measures to secure
welfare of daughters of the petitioner and will see to it that their
interest including education, well being, safety and security are
kept in tact within his capacity.

Hence, this court is satisfied after interacting with all the
concerned parties present before this court that Garima and
Monika are not under any unlawful custody of their grandfather
and this court would not like to comment anything beyond this,
so to prejudice the case of the petitioner before the appropriate
court having jurisdiction to deal with the provisions of Guardian
And Wards Act of Garima and Monika, therefore, any
observation made by this court above, will not come in the way
of the petitioner seeking her remedy before the appropriate court
dealing with the provisions of Guardian And Wards Act.

With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.



Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *