IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr. MMO No. 228 of 2016
Decided on : 31.10.2017
Major Som Nath Palde …Petitioner
Pooja Kashyap …Respondent
Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur, Judge.
Whether authorized for reporting? Yes.
For a postulant : Ms. Neelam W. Bakshi, Advocate.
For a respondent : Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate.
Sureshwar Thakur, Judge (oral)
The present petition is destined opposite a orders, parallel conspicuous by a schooled courts below, whereby a halt control of teenager child Adhrit, was destined to be defended by a respondent herein.
The parties contested their particular capacities to take a best fitting caring of masculine teenager Adhrit. The petitioner/complainant had contended before a schooled courts next that given a respondent being raid with a psychiatric disorder, thereupon she stood precluded to take an suitable caring of a masculine minor. However, a respondent had with her respond to a application, appended a certificate released by a doctor, wherein an echoing occurred, of hers being not raid with any psychiatric disorder, whereupon it was resolved that a mistrust of a applicant of a respondent being raid with a psychiatric commotion also hers lacking a fitting ability to take an best caring of a teenager child, hence stood effaced. However, any indictment of faith on a certificate released by a alloy concerned, with a attestation therein, of a respondent not pang any psychiatric disorder, might not, describe her to reason a suitable area parentis, given it being conjunction tendered into justification nor it being proven in suitability with law. Consequently, both a schooled courts next in imputing faith thereto, have committed a sum illegality besides an impropriety. In aftermath, a impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to a schooled Judicial Magistrate concerned, to, in suitability capacitate a respondent to infer a apposite certificate also to capacitate a petitioner/non-applicant, to cite come-back justification thereto, whereafter he shall, within 3 months, from 23.11.2017, make a pronouncement, on an focus expel underneath a supplies of Section 21 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. However, compartment a attestation is done on a aforesaid application, a respondent/applicant shall continue to keep a halt control of a teenager child. The petitioner/non-applicant shall in suitability with law, reason rights to revisit a teenager child. It is also simplified that both a contestants shall be available to cite best documentary evidence, in honour of each, hence affirmatively proof a emanate appertaining to any holding a fitting capacity, to take a best care, of a teenager child. All tentative applications also mount likely of.
Records be sent behind forthwith. The parties are destined to seem before a schooled Judicial Magistrate on 23.11.2017.
Any regard done herein above shall not be taken as an countenance of opinion on a merits of a box and a hearing Court shall confirm a matter uninfluenced by any regard done herein above.
(Sureshwar Thakur) Judge
31st October, 2017