LI Network
Published on: January 8, 2024 at 00:10 IST
The Supreme Court brought closure to proceedings in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a specially abled child against his father, who had previously lodged a complaint against the child and the mother, alleging fraud and cheating.
Considering the father’s stance that the complaint was filed impulsively and based on misguided legal advice, the Court acknowledged his regret.
The bench, comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan, took into account the withdrawal of the complaint before any legal action, noting the father’s remorse for the ill-advised act.
The Court mentioned, “The father has filed an affidavit accepting that the complaint against their specially abled child should not have been filed, admitting it was made impulsively based on incorrect legal advice. We recognize his regret. Equally, we appreciate the petitioner no.2’s feelings, rightfully asserting that the father should have been more cautious before filing a criminal complaint against their specially abled child.”
Additionally, in the interest of justice, the bench decided to close the proceedings and directed the father to pay a fine of ₹50,000.
Both the petitioner (mother) and respondent (father) appeared in person.
The case involves a specially abled child, under the care of his mother. The marital relationship between the mother and father had ended long ago, but legal battles persisted in various courts across Chandigarh, Panchkula, and Delhi even after their divorce.
The situation escalated when the father filed a criminal complaint under Sections 209, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, implicating both petitioners as accused.
The mother learned of the filing before any legal action and sought to quash it via a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.
However, the complaint was withdrawn, rendering the petition obsolete, which was informed to the High Court, leading to the petition’s disposal in March 2023.
Later, the mother sought modification of the order to assess the legitimacy and bona fides of the complaint against the specially abled child. Yet, the High Court declined this request as the complaint had been withdrawn.
Consequently, these two High Court orders were contested in the Supreme Court, leading to the Special Leave Petition.
Taking all submissions into account, the bench concluded the SLP. Additionally, the bench urged the High Court to swiftly decide any pending litigation by the petitioners for maintenance arrears from the father, preferably within four months.