In a landmark ruling, the Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, quashed an FIR against a father accused of kidnapping his own minor son. The judgment, delivered by Justice Venkatesh Naik T in Criminal Petition No. 102394 of 2023, has clarified the legal standing of a father’s guardianship under Indian law.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR lodged by the biological mother of the minor child at Khadebazar Police Station, Belagavi. The FIR, registered as Crime No. 53/2023, accused the father of forcibly taking their two-year-old son from the mother’s residence on August 20, 2023. The mother alleged that this act constituted kidnapping under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue before the court was whether a father could be charged with kidnapping for taking his own minor child from the custody of the mother. The court examined the applicability of Section 361 IPC, which defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship, and its relevance to the case.
Court’s Decision
Justice Venkatesh Naik T, after hearing the arguments from both sides, concluded that the act of the petitioner did not constitute an offense under Section 363 IPC. The court emphasized that under Hindu law, the father is the natural guardian of a minor child, as stipulated by Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.
Key Observations by the Court:
1. Natural Guardianship: “The petitioner-father is a natural guardian of a minor, in the absence of an order otherwise passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction.”
2. Lawful Guardian Definition: “The father of a child will not come within the scope of Section 361 IPC, even if he takes away the child from the custody of the mother.”
3. Precedent Cases: The court referenced previous judgments, including Capt. Vipin Menon v. The State Of Karnataka and Chandrakala Menon (Mrs) And Anr. v Vipin Menon (Capt.) and Anr., which held that a father cannot be charged for taking away his minor child from the custody of his wife.
Conclusion
The court ruled that the FIR against the father was an abuse of the legal process, as the essential ingredients of the offense of kidnapping were not met. Consequently, the FIR was quashed, providing relief to the petitioner.
Order
1. The petition is allowed.
2. The FIR registered in Cr.No.53/2023 of Khadebazar police station, Belagavi, for the offense under Section 363 IPC is hereby quashed.
3. Pending IAs, if any, stand disposed of.
Also Read
Parties Involved
– Petitioner: Represented by advocates Sri. Rohit Kumar Singh and Sri. Sajid Ahmed Goodwala.
– Respondents: Represented by Sri. Jairam Siddi, HCGP, and an advocate for the biological mother.
