Noting that there could be “danger to his life and limb at the hands of his father”, the Bombay High Court has appointed a boy’s maternal uncle as his guardian instead of his paternal grandmother. The boy witnessed his mother’s murder at the hands of his father in 2016.
Not feasible to appoint boy's paternal grandmother as guardian: Court
Justice Prithviraj Chavan observed that the murder would have definitely had a deep-rooted impact on the boy’s mind and said, “Having suffered a trauma of such a magnitude at such a tender age, it would not be feasible at all to appoint his paternal grandmother as guardian and to allow the child to remain in the same house where his mother was murdered.”
The HC was hearing an appeal filed by the boy’s uncle challenging the order of the May 3, 2018, of the civil court.
Child testified in sessions court against father
The husband, a dentist, suspected his wife’s fidelity. Suspecting the child’s paternity, he even compelled her to take a DNA test. He killed her on December 11, 2016, when the boy was merely four years old. Now 11, the boy testified in the sessions court. The man is in jail facing trial for murder. During the course of the hearing in the uncle’s plea, Justice Chavan interacted with the child alone.
The court said that it would be difficult to presume that in case of acquittal, the father would not try to access his son, more particularly as the child had deposed against him. “In that case, there could be danger to his life…,” the court added.
HC sets aside lower courts order
Setting aside the order of the lower court, the HC said that the civil court judge “utterly failed to consider the wish of the child” and all the facts and circumstances in its correct perspective and ignored the basic object of the Guardians and Wards Act. Besides, the lower court also “lost sight of the fact” that since his mother’s death, the boy had been staying with his uncle’s family which is looking after his welfare and is physically, economically, mentally and morally fit to take proper care of him.
“On the other hand, the respondent is a 71-year-old woman staying alone, who may not be physically fit... to take future care of the minor child,” Justice Chavan concluded.
