Geeta And Anr vs Satyawan on 4 September, 2017

CR No. 5925 of 2017(OM) 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No. 5925 of 2017(OM)
Date of Decision: 4.9.2017

Geeta and another

…..Petitioners

Vs.

Satyawan
…..Respondent

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK

Present : Mr. S.M. Tripathi, Advocate
for the petitioners.

****

RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL)

Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 17.8.2017 (Annexure

P-2) passed by the learned family court, whereby conditional order was

passed against Smt. Shakuntla-petitioner No.2 to handover custody of the

minor children to Satyawan-respondent, failing which she will be liable to

civil imprisonment, petitioners have approached this Court by way of

present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for

setting aside the impugned order.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

It is a matter of record that respondent-Satyawan filed petition

under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1980, for custody of the
1 of 3
10-09-2017 02:14:20 :::
CR No. 5925 of 2017(OM) 2

children. Said petition filed by the respondent was allowed by the learned

court of competent jurisdiction vide its order dated 16.11.2013 (Annexure P-

1). This order has not been set aside by any court of law so far. It was this

order dated 16.11.2013 which was being sought to be executed by the

respondent. In the execution petition, learned executing court passed the

impugned order dated 17.8.2017 (Annexure P-2).

It has gone undisputed before this Court that children are in the

custody of Smt. Shakuntla-petitioner No.2. It is also a matter of record that

order dated 16.11.2013 (Annexure P-1) is still in operation. A bare perusal

of both the orders passed by learned courts below would make it crystal

clear that petitioners are trying to play smart. They do not want to hand over

the custody of children to the decree-holder/respondent. This was the reason

that the learned executing court was left with no other option except to pass

the impugned conditional order for civil imprisonment for petitioner No.2 in

case she fails to hand over custody of the children to the decree holder-

respondent. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that

the learned court below was well within its jurisdiction to pass the impugned

order and the same deserves to be upheld.

During the course of hearing., learned counsel for the petitioners

could not point out any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order,

which may warrant interference at the hands of this Court, while exercising

its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In

fact, the impugned order has been found duly supported by sound reasons

and the same deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.

No other argument was raised.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

2 of 3
10-09-2017 02:14:21 :::
CR No. 5925 of 2017(OM) 3

noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the

considered view that present revision petition is misconceived, bereft of

merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference

has been made out.

Resultantly, with the abovesaid observations made, instant

revision petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

4.9.2017 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
Ak Sharma JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No

3 of 3
10-09-2017 02:14:21 :::

Leave a Comment

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