SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Dr. Syed Md. Najib Bihari @ Imran @ … vs Syeda Tarranum Bano on 3 February, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.29 of 2020

Dr. Syed Md. Najib Bihari @ Imran @ Mo. Najib Bihari @ Mohd. Najeeb
Behari S/o Mojib Bihari @ Mo. Mujib Bihari, residence of 98/191-C-1,
Mohalla- Kalumal Bagicha, behind Rupam Talkies, Bekanganj, Dist-
Kanpur (U.P.) – 208001.

… … Petitioner
Versus
Syeda Tarranum Bano W/o Dr. Syed Md. Najib Bihari @ Imran @ Mo.
Najib Bihar @ Mohd. Najeeb Behari, D/o of Late Mahmudul Hassan,
residence of Kalumal Bagicha, behind Rupam Talkies, Bekanganj, Dist.

-Kanpur (U.P) – 208001 At Present Mohalla- Quazi, P.O and P.S.- Sherghati,
Dist- Gaya.

… … Respondent

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhendra Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s:

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 03-02-2020

The present application has been filed “for setting aside
the order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Guardianship Case No. 05/2014
by the court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Gaya whereby
the petitioner has been directed to produce his minor child aged
about six years without assigning any reason for the same and in
consequent thereof vide order dated 16.11.2019 bailable warrant of
arrest has been issued against the petitioner for not production of the
child before the learned Court below.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
learned Court below ought not to have required production of the
minor child without assigning any reason for the same and in the
absence of any requisition by the respondents. By its subsequent
order dated 16.11.2019, bailable warrant has been issued against
the petitioner for non-production of the minor child. Reference is
invited to Section 12(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.29 of 2020 dt.03-02-2020
2/2

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) which empowers the Court to
make an order for production of a minor.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on
consideration of the materials on record, this Court is not inclined
to interfere in the matter. It appears that the petitioner did not
respond to the order dated 17.10.2019, whether by way of
objection or by way of compliance, rather he chose to ignore the
order of the Court. A perusal of Section 12(1) of the Act does not
appear to place any embargo on the powers of the Court and
provides that it may direct the person, if any, having custody of the
minor, shall produce him at such place, time and before such person
as the Court may appoint and also make an order for the temporary
custody and protection of the person or property of the minor as it
thinks proper.

4. In this view of the matter, this Court finds the petition
to be devoid of merit and is dismissed as such, with the liberty that
if there is any difficulty on the part of the petitioner to produce the
minor, he may file a petition before the learned Court below in this
regard for consideration on its own merits.

(Vikash Jain, J)
Ibrar//-

AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 06.02.2020
Transmission Date N.A.

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation