Delhi High Court
Shri Bharat Tnwar & Anr vs Shri Ajeet Singh on 17 March, 2011
Author: S.L.Bhayana
HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
C.M.(M) No. 670/2010
Date of Decision:- 17.03.2011
Shri Bharat Tanwar & Anr. ...Petitioner
Through. Ms. Anjali Chopra, Adv.
Versus
Shri Ajeet Singh ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Vikas Goyal.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.L. BHAYANA
1. Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be referred in Yes
the Digest?
S. L. BHAYANA, J.
The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 06.02.2010,
whereby the learned trial Court has dismissed the application
moved by the petitioners under Order VIII Rule 1-A read with
section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC") and application under section 151 of the CPC.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts of this case are that the
respondent has filed a petition under section 25 of the Guardian
and Wards Act claiming custody of the minor child Master Paras.
Whereas, the petitioners have also filed a petition under section 7
of the Guardians and Wards Act for being declared as the
CM(M) No. 670/2010 P a g e 1 of 4
Guardian of Master Paras. Both these petitions have been
consolidated in one petition bearing No. G-24/05 filed. The
respondent is the natural father of Master Paras and petitioner
Nos.1 and 2 are maternal uncle and aunt of the child. The
respondent was married Anita, sister of petitioner No.1 on
03.03.1995 and with this wedlock Master Paras was born on
04.05.2000. It is alleged that Anita had died due to harassment
and torture for dowry by the respondent and his family members.
A criminal case was also registered against the respondent and
his family members under section 306/498-A/406/34 of Indian
Penal Code in P.S. Farsh Bazar. Since the death of the mother,
the child is in the care and custody of petitioner Nos.1 and 2.
3. However, it is stated that due to the lack of knowledge the
documents regarding the details of the status of the petitioners
and expenses being incurred upon the minor child could not be
furnished before the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioners had
filed an application under Order VIII Rule 1-A read with section
151 of CPC for production of documents, which has been
dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2010.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present petition.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for
the parties and perused the record carefully. The contention of
the petitioners are that they may be permitted to file on record
before the trial Court, the additional documents regarding the
expenses being incurred by them in respect of the minor child
CM(M) No. 670/2010 P a g e 2 of 4
Master Paras and property papers to show that they are
financially capable of looking after the minor child. Whereas,
learned counsel for the respondent has asserted that no sufficient
cause has been shown by the petitioners for not filing those
documents at the appropriate stage and for not proving the same
during evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent has further asserted
that the evidence of the petitioner has been closed on
21.05.2009 but the petitioners did not place the said documents
on record either at the appropriate stage or till the conclusion of
their evidence. The other contention of the petitioner is that a
personal interaction with the minor child would enable the Court
to ascertain whether the present custody deserves to be
disturbed. In response thereto, learned counsel for the
respondent states that personal interaction has already been
carried out by the trial Court on 02.06.2007 and as per the
observations made in the order dated 02.04.2007 passed in
CM(Main) No.278/2007, this Court had also carried out chamber
interaction.
7. Therefore, on the basis of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, I agree with the view taken by the Trial Court,
which is reproduced below:
"Even otherwise also, this Court is of the view that none of
the parties has any right to move any such application by
requesting the Court to have chamber interaction with the
child and it is within the discretion of the Court to have
chamber interaction with the child if required."
CM(M) No. 670/2010 P a g e 3 of 4
8. I, therefore, hold that there is no need for the trial Court to hold a
meeting with the child, as prayed in the petition. Regarding the prayer
of setting aside the impugned order, I am of the view that in matter of
custody of a minor child the paramount consideration of the court is
the "welfare of the minor", the future of the child is of prime
consideration to this court. The petitioner did not place the relevant
documents on record at the time of examination of their witnesses.
These documents are necessary to prove the controversy between the
parties.
9. In the interest of justice, the present petition is partly allowed,
subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as costs to the respondent before
the next date fixed before the trial Court. The petitioner is directed to
file the relevant documents before the trial Court. The prayer regarding
holding a meeting by the court with the child in the chamber is
rejected.
10. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
11. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court for compliance.
(S.L. BHAYANA)
JUDGE
March 17, 2011
CM(M) No. 670/2010 P a g e 4 of 4
