Paridhi Arya
Published on June 21, 2022 at 18:58 IST
The Division Bench of Justice M. Duraiswamy and Justice Sunder Menon set aside the order passed by Single Judge Bench and held that parties should be allowed to present oral and documentary evidence.
The Court observed that, “it is settled law that while deciding the Original Petition to appoint the guardian the courts should allow the party to let in oral and documentary evidences. In such view of the matter, on that ground alone, the order passed by Single Judge in O.P. No. 423 of 2020 is liable to be set aside.”
The appeal is filed by the father who seeks custody of his minor male child. The Original Petition was filed in the Court of Single Judge under Section 3 and Section 25 of Guardianship and Wards Act r/w Order XXI Rule 2 and 3 of Original side Rules.
The Single Judge dismissed this appeal on the grounds that wife had filed a criminal case against husband under the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class which was dismissed because he did not contested it properly.
The both the parties submitted that their oral and documentary evidences were not recorded and counsel also suggested that for early disposal parties need to cooperate and limited time will only be provided.
The Division Bench set aside the order and remitted the case back to the Single Judge to decide the matter after allowing the oral and documentary evidences and that to within four months.
The Court decided that till the time judgment is not passed the child will be in the custody of his father and his mother will have right to talk through video conferencing same to the arrangement provided by the Single Judge Bench.