Punjab-Haryana High Court
Xxxxxxxxxxxx vs Xxxxxxxxxxxx on 11 March, 2026
CRR-195-2026
2026 (O&M) -1-
112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRR
RR-195-2026 (O&M)
Date of Decision:
Decision:- 11.03.2026
Tinku and others .... Petitioners
VERSUS
Shivani Devi .... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Sakal Sikri, Advocate and
Mr. Jugansh Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
AMARJOT BHATTI, J.
1. Petitioners Tinku, Dharampal and Om Patti have filed criminal revision against impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, whereby appeal preferred by present petitioners was dismissed by upholding the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal.
2. Learned counsel representing representing petitioners pointed out that marriage iage of Shivani Devi-respondent Devi was solemnized with Rinku son of petitioners No. 2 and 3 and brother of petitioner No. 1 on 17.02.2021 at Kaithal. Out of this wedlock, female child child, namely, Reet was born on 05.11.2022.
22. Unfortunately, Rinku-husband husband of respondent expired on 10.06.2024 due to illness. Brother of respondent took away respondent to parental house on 21.06.2024 by abandoning the child. Minor daughter was looked after by present petitioners. Thereafter, respondent filed complaint dated 06.08.2024 with false and frivolous allegations with Women LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-195-2026 2026 (O&M) -2- Protection Officer, Police Station Women, Kaithal, levelling false allegations. She filed Complaint No. COMA/164/ COMA/164/2024 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'DV Act') on 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-1).
P 1). Petitioners filed their reply dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-2).
P 2). In the said case, application was filed under Section 23 read with Section 21 of DV Act, 2005, seeking interim relief of handing over the custody of minor daughter Reet to her mother i.e. respondent, which was allowed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal by passing order dated 05.12.2025. Petitioners filed appeal under Section 29 of DV Act, 2005 (Annexure P-3) P ) which was declined by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal by passing impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026.
It is argued that as per mandate of Section 21 of DV Act, 2005, only temporary custody of child can be granted to aggrieved person. Otherwise,, custody of minor child can be claimed under the provisions of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. Term 'temporary ' emporary custody' applies only during the pendency of proceedings under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005. Learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal has pas passed order beyond the provisions of Section 21 of DV Act, 2005 by granting permanent custody of minor child to respondent.. Aforesaid factual position is not rightly appreciated by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal while passing order dated 05.12.2025 05.12.2025 as well as by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal while passing impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026. Therefore, aforesaid impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, upholding the order dated 05.12.
05.12.2025
LALIT SHARMA
2026.03.17 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRR-195-2026
2026 (O&M) -3-
passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal is liable to be set aside.
3. I have considered the factual position. All relevant documents are already annexed for proper appreciation of the facts and adjudication of present case. There are certain facts which are not disputed. As per factual position, respondent was married to Rinku on 17.02.2021 and out of this wedlock, they were having a daughter, born on 05.11.2022. Rinku-husband of respondent expired on 10.06.2024 on account of illness. Dispute started in matrimonial home. It is not disputed that respondent shifted to her parental house allegedly on 21.06.2024. It is the case of respondent that she was turned out of the matrimonial home by keeping her minor daughter by petitioners, whereas, whereas, petitioners claimed that she abandoned the child and went to her parental house along with her brother. Application filed by respondent under Section 12 of DV Act, 2005 (Annexure P P-1) is still pending before learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaitha Kaithal. At the time of disposal of application for interim relief under Section 23 read with Section 21 of DV Act, 2005, custody of minor daughter was ordered to be handed over to mother i.e. respondent Shivani Devi in presence of SHO, Police Station Pundri. At the same time, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal observed that this order will have no prejudice to right of respondents (petitioners in this case) seeking visitation rights post adjudication of present case. While deciding this application, learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal fairly considered that respondent is mother and after the death of her husband, she is the guardian of minor daughter. Age of daughter is also taken into consideration. Obviously, in LALIT SHARMA 2026.03.17 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRR-195-2026 2026 (O&M) -4- such like cases, welfare of of child is of paramount consideration. All aspects were duly considered by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal while passing order dated 05.12.2025 and appeal preferred by petitioners under Section 29 of DV Act, 2005 was also rightly dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026.
Therefore, I do not find any illegality or irregularity commit committed by any of the Court below while disposing of application as well as appeal granting interim custody of minor child under Section 21 of DV Act, 2005. Consequently, impugned judgment dated 19.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kaithal, upholding the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kaithal is, accordingly upheld and criminal revision preferred by petitioners is, accordingly dismissed.
4. Since, petitioners No. 2 and 3 are grandparents and petitioner No.1 is paternal uncle of minor child, with whom minor child stayed for a considerable time period, therefore, petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate application seeking visitation right rights as per law during the pendency of application under Section Section 12 of DV Act, 2005 2005, which will be considered by the Court on merits.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly as well.
11.03.2026 (AMARJOT BHATTI)
lalit JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
LALIT SHARMA
2026.03.17 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document