LAXMI ROY AND ANOTHER Vs. DEEPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the paternal grandparents of a male child namely Utkarsh Roy born on 28.04.2017 challenging the order dated 06.02.2020 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, wherein an application moved by the petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC for impleading them as respondents to the petition preferred by Deepa-respondent No.1 herein (mother of the child) under Section 6 read with Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as '1956 Act') for permanent custody of Utkarsh Roy, who is presently residing with Sanjeev Roy-respondent No.2 (pro forma), father of the child, has been dismissed.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that respondent No.1-Deepa and respondent No.2-Sanjeev Roy got married on 10.05.2014. Out of the wedlock, Utkarsh Rai was born on 28.04.2017. Both the respondents are Advocates by profession. Allegation on the part of respondent No.2 was that after joining the profession, respondent No.1 not only started maltreating respondent No.2 but also did not care for the child. There was quarrel between them, because of which respondent No.1 abandoned the child and left the matrimonial home on 24.06.2018. Even during the period when the respondents were residing together, the petitioners, who are grandparents of the minor child, took care of the said minor as both the respondents remained busy with their practice. Claims and counter claims including complaints, both with the police as well as in the Courts, were filed including a petition under Section 6 read with Section 13 of the 1956 Act, which was preferred by respondent No.1 claiming the custody of the minor child Utkarsh Roy. Assertion of the petitioners is that the Women Cell, Sector-17, Chandigarh, made an effort to resolve the issue between the respondents. There respondent No.1 agreed to withdraw all litigations including the petition for custody of the minor, similarly, respondent No.2 also agreed to withdraw all the cases.

(3.) However, the said statement was not honoured. Respondent No.1, during the pendency of the custody case, filed Criminal Writ Petition No.406 of 2019 praying for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus for production of the minor child before the Court from the illegal custody of not only her husband-respondent No.2 but also the petitioners, who were arrayed as respondents No.2 and 3 along with their younger son Sanjay Roy. The said writ petition was decided by this Court vide order dated 30.05.2019 (Annexure P-3) by observing that the matter was already pending before the Guardian Judge, Chandigarh, and, therefore, direction was issued to the said Court to expedite the proceedings for custody of the child pending before the Court.