Seema Kapoor And Anr vs Deepak Kapoor And Anr on 11 September, 2017

CR No.6449 of 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CR No.6449 of 2006 (OM)
Date of Decision: 11.09.2017

Seema Kapoor and another

… Petitioners.
Versus

Deepak Kapoor and others
… Respondents

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:- Mr. Anil Malhotra, Advocate, Amicus Cureae
for the petitioners.

Mr. Pawan Sharda, Sr. DAG, Punjab

Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the CBI.

Mr. Ivan Singh Khosa, Advocate

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. (ORAL).

Seema Kapoor and Surinder Kumar have filed this revision

petition challenging the order dated 03.11.2006 passed by the Additional

Civil Judge(Senior Division) Dasuya, directing Seema Kapoor and Surinder

Kumar to hand over the interim custody of Aishley Kapoor born on

14.08.1999 to natural parents.

In this revision petition, operation of the impugned order i.e.

03.11.2006 was stayed.

1 of 3
18-09-2017 19:53:45 :::
CR No.6449 of 2006 2

Aishley Kapoor is now more than 18 years of age. Hence, I am

of the considered opinion that this revision petition as well as proceedings

before the trial Court under the Guardians and Wards Act have become

infructuous as with the lapse of time, no further order under the Guardians

and Wards Act can be passed.

Although, this case has a chequered history and various

detailed orders have been passed by this Court as Seema Kapoor and

Surinder Kumar abused the process of the Court by taking the advantage of

the interim order passed by this Court and removed the child from the

jurisdiction of this Court to the United Kingdom, but in view of the

subsequent development and keeping in view the passage of time, the

present petition has become infructuous.

This Court even issued contempt notice, however, the service

of notice could not be effected. The Central Bureau of Investigation was

also involved. Efforts were made for extradition of Seema Kapoor and

Surinder Kumar as well as Aishley Kapoor but remained unsuccessful.

In view of the fact that this revision petition has been pending

for almost 11 years but the presence of neither Seema Kapoor nor Surinder

Kumar or Aishley Kapoor could be secured, I am of the considered opinion

that this case is required to be closed. However, as and when the police

authorities or the Central Bureau of Investigation are able to secure the

custody of Seema Kapoor and Surinder Kumar, the respondents would be at

liberty to move an application for prosecuting the petitioners under The

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

2 of 3
18-09-2017 19:53:46 :::
CR No.6449 of 2006 3

In view of the above, the revision petition is dismissed as

infructuous.

(ANIL KSHETARPAL)
11.09.2017 JUDGE
sk

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No

3 of 3
18-09-2017 19:53:46 :::

Leave a Comment

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