Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Santosh Govardhan Bilawal and his father Govardhan Ratansing Bilawal, filed a criminal writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.200/2010. The dispute arose from a matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2, who is the wife of petitioner No.1. Respondent No.2 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.133/2010 before the JMFC, Gangapur under Section 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking production of her minor son Vishal. On 22.04.2010, the JMFC directed the petitioners to produce the child on 30.04.2010. On that date, the petitioners complied and the JMFC handed over custody to respondent No.2. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.124/2010 before the Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, which was allowed on 21.06.2010, directing respondent No.2 to hand over custody to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 did not comply, leading the petitioners to file Miscellaneous Application No.209/2010 for implementation. The Additional Sessions Judge then passed the impugned order on 16.11.2010 in Criminal Revision No.200/2010, which the petitioners challenged. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the revisional court had correctly considered the welfare of the child and that the order under Section 97 CrPC was not sustainable. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the custody order in favor of the petitioners.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 97 - Custody of Minor Child - Welfare of Child - The court considered the legality of an order under Section 97 CrPC directing production of a minor child. The Sessions Judge allowed revision and granted custody to the father. The High Court upheld the order, emphasizing that the welfare of the child is paramount and that the revisional court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in allowing the criminal revision and directing custody of the minor child to the petitioners, and whether the order under Section 97 CrPC was proper.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge directing custody of the minor child to the petitioners.
Law Points
- Section 97 CrPC
- custody of minor child
- welfare of child paramount
- revisional jurisdiction
- execution of orders
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (09) 11
Criminal Writ Petition No. 77 of 2011
Mr. S.K. Barlota for petitioners, Mr. S.D. Kaldate APP for respondent State, Mr. R.V. Gore for respondent No.2
Santosh Govardhan Bilawal and Govardhan Ratansing Bilawal
The State of Maharashtra and Kanchana Santosh Bilawal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging the order of Additional Sessions Judge in a revision arising from proceedings under Section 97 CrPC for production of a minor child.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 16.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.200/2010.
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the Additional Sessions Judge which they believed was erroneous.
Previous Decisions
JMFC Gangapur on 22.04.2010 directed production of minor child; on 30.04.2010 custody handed to respondent No.2. Sessions Judge on 21.06.2010 allowed revision and directed custody to petitioners. Additional Sessions Judge on 16.11.2010 passed the impugned order.
Issues
Whether the Additional Sessions Judge erred in allowing the criminal revision and directing custody of the minor child to the petitioners?
Whether the order under Section 97 CrPC was proper?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the revisional court had correctly considered the welfare of the child and that the order under Section 97 CrPC was not sustainable.
Respondent No.2 argued that the custody should remain with her as the mother.
Ratio Decidendi
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters, and the revisional court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 97 CrPC. The order directing custody to the father was proper and did not warrant interference.
Judgment Excerpts
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally at the stage of admission.
This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.11.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Criminal Revision Application No.200/2010.
Procedural History
Respondent No.2 filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.133/2010 under Section 97 CrPC before JMFC Gangapur. JMFC on 22.04.2010 directed production of child. On 30.04.2010, child produced and custody given to respondent No.2. Petitioners filed Criminal Revision No.124/2010 before Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, allowed on 21.06.2010 directing custody to petitioners. Respondent No.2 did not comply. Petitioners filed Miscellaneous Application No.209/2010 for implementation. Additional Sessions Judge passed impugned order on 16.11.2010 in Criminal Revision No.200/2010. Petitioners filed Criminal Writ Petition No.77/2011 before High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Section 97
