AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Soumen Sen, C.J.
We have heard Mr. Faheem Ahsan S., learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.A. Anas, learned Public Prosecutor for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Mr. Latheesh Sebastian, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 and 8.
The maternal grandmother is the petitioner. Presently, the child is in the custody of his father. The mother admittedly was working abroad, and it is alleged and claimed by the petitioner that the child had been residing with her and that she had been taking good care of him. It was during such custody that the child was allegedly abducted by Respondent No. 7, the father of the child.
Curiously, no steps have been taken either by the petitioner or by the mother to seek custody of the child. As of now, the child continues to remain in the custody of the father. Respondent No. 7 has also filed an application seeking a declaration of guardianship. This also makes the matter a little curious.
However, since the custody petition is pending, and the mother of the child, with whom we have interacted, has submitted that three sittings have taken place in the meantime, we do not wish to disturb the present custody of the child. This, however, shall not be construed as any affirmation of the father’s right to become the guardian of the child.
In view of the fact that the child is suffering from a nephrological problem and is only three years old, the capacity of the father to provide and undertake such treatment may also be a relevant consideration in the pending proceeding.
The learned Court before whom the proceeding is pending shall decide the matter impartially and without being influenced by any observation made in this judgment, by applying the criteria stipulated under Section 17 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and other relevant legislation concerning the welfare of the child.
The petition is disposed of.