Karnataka HC decided that the father’s natural guardianship rights prevail till special prohibition

Last Updated on August 5, 2024 by NewsDesk SLC

Single bench judge Justice Venkatesh Naik T quashed the petition initiated by the wife against her husband for the offense punishable under 361IPC.  Where he was charged with kidnapping his minor child from the custody of his wife.

As per the complaint, the petitioner’s father attended the second birthday party of his son at his disserted mother then he took his son to his house for a birthday celebration that he arranged for her as the following wife filed the complaint against her husband for kidnapping his son.

 The petitioner alleged that the act of the accused attracts the offense of kidnapping

The accused argued that being a father has” natural guardian” rights and he cannot be alleged of the offense

Referring to section 361IPC– added an explanation that says “a lawful guardian included only person legally entrusted with a case or custody a minor or another person

Offense completion– someone takes a minor child away from a legal guardian, they can be charged under this section.

Noting under Section 6 of Ward Act 1890 considers fathers as the natural guardians

Court says, that the father, a “Natural guardian” cannot be charged with kidnapping for taking his minor child from the mother’s custody unless there is a specific court prohibition.

Karnataka HC held that there is ‘no prima facie’ case made out, and continuing the prosecution in such a situation without sufficient grounds would be considered an abuse of the court’s legal process because the father won’t be guilty under section 361 IPC, As long as the father’s legal rights exist.

Appearance: Advocate Rohit Kumar Singh for Advocate Sajid Goodale for Petitioner

Case Law: Kushagra S/O. Sudhir Sinha and State of Karnataka

Written by: Kirti Sharma