SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Rajneesh Sidhu vs Navneet Kaur on 12 March, 2019

CR No.1668 of 2019 1


114 CR No.1668 of 2019
Date of decision:12.3.2019
Dr.Rajneesh Sidhu

… Petitioner

Dr.Navneet Kaur
… Respondent


Present: Mr.M.S.Uppal, Advocate,
for the petitioner
Mr.Abhinav Gupta, Advocate,
for the respondent


On 11.3.2019, the following order had been passed:-

“By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the

learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa, dated 26.2.2019,

by which an application filed by the respondent herein, seeking

interim custody of the child of the parties, i.e. a girl less than 5

years of age, has been allowed, during the pendency of a

petition filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, read with the Guardians

and Wards Act, 1890.

It is stated in the impugned order that evidence was still to

be led by both the parties to establish their respective assertions

qua the custody of the child, with “the emotional attachment of

the mother with the daughter definitely required to keep the

child in a good mental and spiritual health” and further, that

1 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 2

there was nothing to show that the mother would act adverse to

the interest of the minor child (even though the contention of

the petitioner herein, i.e. the respondent before that Court), was

to the effect that the respondent (mother) is of uncontrollable

temper and the minor is not safe with her.

It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner herein

that he, i.e. the father, being a paediatrician who was running a

child care hospital on the ground floor, with his residence on

the second floor of the same building, and his parents being a

retired teacher and an officer from the Government, the child

can be looked after perfectly well by them.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that the respondent on the other hand is not capable of

looking after the child, she having undergone treatment for

some psychiatry problem, in support of which he draws

attention to the medical certificates annexed as Annexure P-5

(collectively) with the petition. A perusal thereof shows that the

prescriptions are dated 13.8.2015, 12.10.2015 and 16.4.2016,

with one of them shown to be dated 8th April (without the year


Upon query as to the present condition of the respondent,

he submits that she was under treatment for the same problem

even in the year 2018.

When this Court was in the process of directing him to

place on record any such certificate showing that she was

2 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 3

undergoing some psychiatric problem due to which she was

incapable of looking after the child, Mr.Abhinav Gupta,

Advocate, has appeared for the respondent (even before notice

of motion has been issued), and has produced in Court a

photocopy of a certificate shown to be issued by the Civil

Surgeon, Mansa, on 11.7.2018 (in Gurmukhi), stating to the

effect that the respondent, Dr.Navneet Kaur, Senior Medical

Officer (Gynae) at the Civil Hospital, Mansa, was being

awarded for the large number of deliveries conducted by her in

the month of July, 2018.

He therefore submits that obviously, if she was undergoing

any such serious psychiatric issue, she would be incapable of

even doing her job.

He also submits that as a matter of fact he has also filed a

caveat petition which has somehow not been listed).

Notice of motion.

Mr.Abhinav Gupta having already appeared accepts notice

for the respondent and seeks time to show as to how the child

would be looked after when the respondent is busy with her

duties in hospital, with her now posted at the Civil Hospital,

Rupnagar, learned counsel for the petitioner having raised an

argument that her parents also are living at Bathinda and

therefore there is no body to look after the child.

Adjourned to 12.3.2019.

To be shown in the urgent list at”

3 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 4

Notice having been issued in this petition yesterday, today

Mr.Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, has filed in Court affidavits

of the respondent, i.e. the mother of the child, of her brother Navjot Singh,

of her mother Labh Kaur, as also of her father Gurnam Singh, with each

affidavit showing the executants thereof to be living in House No.2506,

BSNL Society, Sector 50, Chandigarh.

In the affidavit of the respondent, it is stated that her father and

mother have both retired from the Punjab Education Department. Her

brother is stated to be working as an Excise and Taxation Officer in the

Department of Excise, Punjab, posted at Mohali, and that she, her brother

and parents are living together in the house, the address of which is given in

the affidavit.

It has further been stated in the affidavit that she would look

after her daughter, Ekam Sidhu, with the utmost love and affection and that

when she would be on duty at the Civil Hospital, Rupnagar, her parents

would remain at home and look after the daughter.

The affidavits of the parents are essentially to the same effect,

with the affidavit of the brother, Navjot Singh, also stating in fact the same


Counter to the aforesaid affidavits, learned counsel for the

petitioner has filed in Court today an affidavit of the petitioner, stating

therein that as a matter of fact the parents of the respondents are still

residing at House No.163, Housefed Colony, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, he

having also annexed therewith a photocopy of a voters list of the said area,

showing the parents of the respondent, the respondent herself as also her

4 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 5

brother, to be all listed voters therein (at sr.nos.203 to 206).

He further contends that in the caveat petition filed by the

respondent (which has somehow not been listed even today), the address of

the respondent given is House No.1006, Phase IV, Mohali, and therefore the

affidavits being filed today, showing the address of the respondent, her

brother and her parents to be of Sector 50, Chandigarh, are actually all false

statements made.

He further submits that in fact the aforesaid house at Mohali

has remained locked for the past six months, as per the petitioner.

In response thereto, learned counsel for the respondent submits

that the respondent, her brother and her parents have all taken a common

residence in Chandigarh and as such, with them now living together, there

would be no issue of the daughter being looked after while the respondent is

away to work.

Other than the above, learned counsel for the respondent refers

to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which

reads as follows:-

“6. Natural guardians of a Hindu minor.- The natural

guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of the minor’s person as

well as in respect of the minor’s property (excluding his or her

undivided interest in joint family property), are-

(a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl- the
father, and after him, the mother: provided that the
custody of a minor who has not completed the age
of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother;

(b) in the case of an illegitimate boy or an illegitimate
unmarried girl- the mother, and after her, the

5 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 6


(c) in the case of a married girl- the husband:

Provided that no person shall be entitled to act as

the natural guardian of a minor under the provisions of

this section-

(a) if he has ceased to be a Hindu, or

(b) if he has completely and finally renounced the

world by becoming a hermit (vanaprastha) or an

ascetic (yati or sanyasi).”

Having considered the contentions raised as regards where the

respondent is residing; she as also her brother and her parents, having stated

on affidavits that their residence is at the address given in the affidavits, and

the respondent and her brother both being Government servants, I see no

reason to disbelieve the affidavits executed by them, unless at any stage it is

shown by the petitioner before the trial Court, in the pending proceedings or

even subsequently, that they are actually not residents of the said place, in

which case of course the trial Court would accordingly pass orders, with the

petitioner also at liberty to file an application bringing to the notice of this

Court, any perjury committed by the respondent, her brother and/or her


As regards the statutory provision, i.e. Section 6 of the Act of

1956, obviously clause (a) thereof stipulates that the mother of a child less

than 5 years of age would ordinarily have custody of the child.

That being so and it not having been shown to this Court that

the respondent is in any manner incapable of looking after her daughter, I

6 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 7

see no reason to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned trial

Court, as has been impugned in this petition, with of course liberty to the

petitioner to bring to the notice of the trial Court any other circumstances to

show that the child is not being looked after in the custody of the mother, in

case such a situation arises.

It needs to be noticed that though learned counsel for the

petitioner yesterday had submitted that he would be bringing further

medical evidence to show that the respondent is undergoing psychiatric

treatment and therefore is incapable of looking after her daughter, no such

medical record has been produced today, and as regards the medical

prescriptions referred to yesterday, the the argument of learned counsel on

that aspect had already been ‘negated’ by this Court yesterday itself, though

it is seen that only the reasoning given by learned counsel for the

respondent has been actually incorporated in the order.

Hence, on that issue, it is found that though learned counsel for

the petitioner had produced in Court medical prescriptions dated 13.8.2015,

12.10.2015 and 16.4.2016, as also one shown to be dated 8th April (with no

year given therein), simply on the basis of those prescriptions, for any

psychiatric issue, with it not shown by learned counsel for the petitioner that

there was any serious problem with the respondent, who is, as already

noticed in yesterdays’ order, being awarded prizes for her work, it has to be

accepted by this Court that she is suffering from no serious ailment which

would disqualify her from looking after her minor daughter.

The respondent is also present in Court and nothing from her

behaviour, whatsoever, is seen by this Court to substantiate any allegation

7 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::
CR No.1668 of 2019 8

made on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that she is not in a fit mental

state of mind to be able to look after her daughter.

Thus, it seems very obvious, in the absence of any medical

certificate certifying to that effect, with her work in Government service

continuing as it should, that the allegation is being made only to try and

deprive her of the custody of her child.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is dismissed.

The custody of the child would be handed over immediately by

the petitioner to the respondent before the learned trial Court within the next

week, with the trial Court directed to adjourn the matter for that purpose to a

date within one week.

Naturally, whatever has been stated herein above is only in the

context of the interim custody as has been correctly granted to the

respondent herein by the learned trial Court, with nothing stated herein

above to be taken as an opinion of this Court on the actual merits of the case

still pending before that Court, which would consequently be adjudicated

upon in the light of the evidence led on both sides.

12.3.2019 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH )

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

8 of 8
18-03-2019 06:42:10 :::

Leave a Reply

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

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 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