Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The appellants contend that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That the Family Court committed an error in granting custody of the child to the respondent. That a serious allegation is made against the respondent - mother of the minor child - that she is having an extramarital affair with one Dastagir. That she has forced the child to undergo circumcision. Hence, the appeal be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, defends the impugned order.

7. The appellant contends that under the influence of one Dasagir, the child was subjected to cruelty. That circumcision was forced upon the child only because the respondent was having an illicit relationship with one Dastagir. We are of the considered view that such an allegation is extremely serious and so also are the repercussions. Under these circumstances, since the child was present in the Court, an amicus curiae was appointed to assist the Court to find out whether circumcision was conducted on the child. The matter was adjourned. The amicus curiae reported back to the Court that on the physical examination of the boy, he has no hesitation to conclude that circumcision was conducted on the boy. The fact reported by the amicus curiae is extremely disturbing. The right of a child has been trampled upon. Only because the mother was having an illicit relationship with one Dastagir cannot justify circumcision on the boy. The act committed by the respondent and that too being a mother is unpardonable. Such an act can never be condoned.