The Supreme Court on Thursday quashed an FIR lodged against a father for taking his son from Mother’s Custody.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit, Ravindra Bhat, and Sudhanshu Dhulia criticised lodging of FIR in such cases and burdening the criminal courts.

The Court was considering an appeal plea moved by the father seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. During the hearing, the Bench pointed out that in custody matters, three aspects are often looked into,

“First, we need to take the view of the child into account meaning, what is good for him. Second, if we grant custody to A instead of B, what kind of environment the child will be exposed to. The third factor we take into account is, whether the child a boy for girl, the mental frame and physical comfort level.”

The Court was told that at present the child is 14 years old and is living with his two elder siblings who are 10 years older to him. Their mother has passed away. The Court was also apprised of the fact that when the appellant father first moved the Allahabad High Court four years back, the child, in an interview with the High Court informed that he did not want to go with his father and that he would be happy with his mother.

When Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash made submissions for custody of the child, the bench said,

“Move any guardianship court. Why file a habeus corpus petition?

“The mother died. The Father is the only guardian. It may cause trouble to the children”, she submitted.

“We will not entertain this. We will reserve your right and dispose of the matter”, the Court said.

At this point, the court was informed that the father is not seeking custody of the child. He is seeking quashing of the FIR against him. But if the child wants to live with the elder siblings, he is fine with that.

To this effect, the order passed by the Bench recorded,

“Anjana Prakash, Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant submits that her client is not pressing for custody of the child in these proceedings, he may initiate appropriate proceedings if he wishes so. However, as father of the child, appellant has to take care of the education and other expenditure. The counsel submits that the father is willing to contribute 20,000 per month. After considering all the allegations in the FIR and totality of the circumstances, in our view, the ends of justice would demand that the concerned FIR be quashed. Ordered accordingly.”

With these observations, the Court disposed of the plea.