Top News Headlines 11th Jun 2022: Income, Age, Bigger Family Cannot Be The Sole Factor To Tilt The Balance In Child Custody Cases

Income, Age, Bigger Family Cannot Be The Sole Factor To Tilt The Balance In Child Custody Cases: SC

• In Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya vs State of Gujarat while awarding custody of the minor grandson, aged 5 years, to his paternal grandparents, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that income, age, bigger family cannot be the sole criteria for tilting balance in child custody matters. 
• In the instant case, the paternal grandfather of the boy had filed a plea of habeas corpus in the High Court alleging that the boy’s maternal aunt was not allowing him to enter the house of his deceased son and daughter-in-law, and that he is not even permitted to meet the boy. While disposing of the plea of habeas corpus, the High Court gave the custody of the child to his maternal aunt. 
• Aggrieved by the same, the grandfather approached the Apex Court. 
• The Counsel for the appellant had submitted that merely because the appellant is 71 years old and his wife is 63, it cannot be presumed that the paternal grandparents would not be able to take care of their grandchild. It was also submitted that merely because the respondent maternal aunt has a bigger family, there cannot be any presumption that they would take better care of the grandson that the grandparents. 
• At the outset, the Apex Court observed that the grounds which the HC had relied upon to grant custody to the maternal aunt could be called relevant, but not germane. There cannot be any presumption that the maternal aunt being unmarried and having an independent income, younger than the paternal grandparents and having a bigger family would take better care than the paternal grandparents. 
• The Court also observed that in our society, the paternal grandparents would always take better care of their grandson. The Court also noted that it is said that the grandparents love the interest rather than the principle. Emotionally too, the grandparents would take better care of their grandson, since they are emotionally attached to their grandchildren to a greater degree. 
• Thus, allowing the appeal and granting the custody of the minor child to his grandparents, the Court requested the parties concerned to let go of the past and look to the future, taking into consideration the future of the child, who has lost both his parents at the tender age of 5 years. 

Accused Cannot Invoke The High Court's Jurisdiction Under Art. 226 Or 227 And U/S 482 CrPC Through His Power Of Attorney Holder: Karnataka High Court

• In Samantha Christina Delfina Willis & Anr v State Of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court held that a POA (power of attorney) holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition either under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
• A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed this while dismissing a petition filed by the accused petitioner who is residing in London and had filed this petition seeking to quash a complaint filed by her husband.
• The Court observed that a petition filed by POA holder of the petitioner, without first seeking Court's permission, and without even mentioning in the petition that he is aware of the facts of the case, the writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. will not be maintainable, because the accused petitioner cannot be represented by a POA holder.
• The Court even imposed a cost of INR 1,00,000/- on the accused. 
• In this case, the accused got married to Syed Ali Hindustani (complainant husband) through a website on June 6, 2021. The former alleged that the husband started torturing her from the 5th dayof their marriage. About a month later, the wife fled to Kolkata to her ancestral home and thereafter flew to London.
• When she returned back in November, 2021, the respondent husband had registered a complaint alleging that she stole all their family jewellery and flew to London.
• The complainant also mentioned that the petitioner induced the husband to transfer an amount of INR 7.5 crores and that the petitioner was not a Muslim but posed herself to be a Muslim.
• The counsel for the petitioner denied the allegations and said that a matrimonial dispute has been given a colour of crime. 
• The counsel for the respondent raised question on the writ petition filed by the petitioner u/s 226 and 227 of the Indian Constitution on the ground that a petition cannot be filed by a POA holder.
• The Ld. Court took note of all the arguments presented by the parties and held that on the basis of the judgments rendered by the Constitutional Courts, it can be unmistakably gathered that the POA holder of an accused cannot maintain a petition.
• This will be the case even if the petition is filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Indian Constitution r/w Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
• Accordingly, the Court dismisses the appeal.