Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, husband and mother-in-law, filed a criminal revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment dated 09.10.2015 passed by the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi, in Criminal Appeal No.149/2014. The appellate court had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent-wife and set aside the order of the trial court, directing the petitioners to hand over the custody of the minor child 'Tazin' to the respondent-mother. The marriage between the first petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 17.10.2010, and a female child named 'Tazin' was born on 25.05.2012, who was in the custody of the petitioners. The respondent had filed a complaint on 28.03.2014, leading to the registration of Crime No.97/2014 for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC against the petitioners. The revisional court examined the legality of the appellate court's order and found that the appellate court had considered the evidence and the welfare of the child, and had rightly granted custody to the mother. The court held that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is limited and can be exercised only if the order is perverse, illegal, or suffers from material irregularity. Since the appellate court's order was well-reasoned and based on evidence, the revision petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revisional Jurisdiction - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - Scope of Interference - The revisional court can interfere only if the order impugned is perverse, illegal, or suffers from material irregularity. The appellate court's order granting custody of the minor child to the mother was based on evidence and welfare of the child, hence no interference warranted. (Paras 5-6)
B) Family Law - Custody of Minor Child - Welfare Principle - The paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the minor child. The appellate court, after considering the evidence, directed custody to the mother, which was upheld by the revisional court. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of the appellate court granting custody of the minor child to the mother is legal and correct, and whether the revisional court should interfere under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the appellate court's order granting custody of the minor child 'Tazin' to the respondent-mother.
Law Points
- Welfare of minor child is paramount in custody matters
- revisional court cannot interfere with well-reasoned appellate order unless perverse
- Section 397 Cr.P.C. scope limited
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (07) 18
Criminal Revision Petition No.100241/2015
I.D. Jalagur for petitioners, Sanotsh B. Rawoot for respondent
Mohammad Yunus and Bibijan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision petition challenging appellate court order granting custody of minor child to mother
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the appellate court's order dated 09.10.2015 and confirm the trial court's order dismissing the mother's custody application
Filing Reason
Petitioners were aggrieved by the appellate court's order directing them to hand over custody of the minor child 'Tazin' to the respondent-mother
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag) dismissed the mother's application for custody; appellate court (VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belagavi) allowed the appeal and granted custody to the mother
Issues
Whether the appellate court's order granting custody of the minor child to the mother is legal and correct?
Whether the revisional court should interfere with the appellate court's order under Section 397 Cr.P.C.?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the appellate court's order was illegal and perverse, and that the trial court's order should be restored.
Respondent argued that the appellate court correctly considered the welfare of the child and granted custody to the mother.
Ratio Decidendi
The revisional court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. can interfere only if the order impugned is perverse, illegal, or suffers from material irregularity. The appellate court's order granting custody to the mother was based on evidence and the welfare of the child, and hence no interference was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
Assailing the legality of the Judgment dated 09.10.2015 passed in Crl. A. No.149/2014 by the VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, sitting at Chikodi, allowing the appeal and thereby, setting aside the order impugned therein, with a direction to handover the minor child ‘Tazin’ to the custody of the respondent – mother, this petition was filed.
Marriage of the 1st petitioner and the respondent was solemnised on 17.10.2010. Out of the wedlock, a female child, named ‘Tazin’ was born on 25.05.2012 and is in the custody of the petitioners.
Procedural History
The respondent-wife filed a complaint on 28.03.2014 leading to Crime No.97/2014 under IPC. She filed an application for custody of the minor child in Crl. Misc. No.153/2014 before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, which was dismissed. She appealed in Crl. A. No.149/2014 before the VII Addl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, who allowed the appeal on 09.10.2015 and directed custody to the mother. The petitioners then filed this criminal revision petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 397, 401
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34
