Mandeep Kaur Brar v. State Of U.T Chandigarh And ORS

Criminal Writ Petition No. 822 of 2016 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 822 of 2016 Date of decision : July 13, 2016 Mandeep Kaur Brar ....Petitioner versus UT Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh Present :

Mr. Saurabh Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner Petitioner-Mandeep Kaur Brar in person Mr. AS Virk, APP, UT Chandigarh for respondents no. 1 to 3 Mr. RK Samyal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 Respondents no. 4 to 7 also in person Fateh Deep Singh, J. (Oral) In compliance with the previous orders dated 8.7.2016, Damanvir Singh aged 5 years and Nahad Kaur aged 3 years, as has been detailed by the counsel of two sides, have been produced by their father Sukhpreet Singh Brar-respondent no. 4.

The Court has personally interacted with the two minor children in the Court as well as in the Chamber separately as well as together and both the children have refused to go with the mother and rather DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2016.07.21 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

Criminal Writ Petition No. 822 of 2016 -2the younger child who is daughter has even refused to go in the lap of the mother and have even shown their disliking for the mother and thus have refused to even allow the mother to touch them what to talk of accompanying her as the mother. Her counsel insisted that she wants to take the children who are both below six years of age as she is in a better position and has a preferential right. Having regard to the fact that it would be highly traumatic for these minor children to accompany the mother at this juncture and it will bring about fathomless misery as well as adverse mental and physical impact on them.

In the light of the same and the special provisions of law enacted by way of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the fact who would be in a better position will be comprehensively adjudicated by means of evidence by the said Court and thus, this Court is of the opinion that there is no legal necessity and imminent need to come to the aid of the petitioner. Without feeling the necessity to comment on the merits, having no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised and which Court shall decide the matter if so entrusted, without prejudiced by the present order which would not in any manner have any impact on the findings of that Guardian Court.

( Fateh Deep Singh ) July 13, 2016 Judge 'tiwana'

DALBIR SINGH TIWANA 2016.07.21 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.