CR No.6449 of 2006 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB HARYANA
CR No.6449 of 2006 (OM)
Date of Decision: 11.09.2017
Seema Kapoor and another
Deepak Kapoor and others
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
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
18-09-2017 19:53:46 :::