Kavi @ StalIn Vs. State

.....of the husband. a petition seeking protection of minor child was thereupon filed by father of the husband before delhi high court. a direction for handing over custody of child to father of husband was also sought. the high court considering fact that the u.k. court was already in seisin of matter and had passed an interim order and by relying on principle of comity of nations and comity of judgments of the courts of two different countries in deciding the matter directed the wife to take the child of her own to u.k.or hand it over to father of husband to be taken to u.k. as measure of interim custody and that it would be for the u.k. court to decide the question of custody - order was challenged by wife - held, the order of high court was not liable to be interfered with. although, on first impression, it would appear that the interests of the minor child would best be served if she is allowed to remain with the wife, the order of u.k. court cannot be lost sight of., the order of u.k. court except for insisiting that the minor be returned to its jurisdiction, the english court did not intend to separate the child from the mother until a final decision was taken with regard to the custody of the child. the ultimate decision in that regard has to be left to the english court having regard to the nationality of the child and the fact that both the parents had worked for gain in the u.k. and had also acquired permanent resident status in the u.k. english court has not directed that the custody of the child should be handed over to the father but that the child should be returned to the jurisdiction of the courts in the u.k. which would then proceed to determine as to who would be best suited to have the custody of the child. the high court has taken into consideration both the questions relating to the comity of courts as well as the interest of the minor child, which, no doubt, is one of the most important considerations in matters relating to custody of..........judge and sentenced to imprisonment of five years with a fine of rs.2,000/-, in default a further period of three months rigorous imprisonment. in criminal appeal no.514/1999 the appellant was charged under section 394/34, 307/34, 397 ipc and section 25 of the arms act and fir no.169/1998 was registered. he was convicted by the sessions judge and sentenced to imprisonment for five years with a fine of rs.2000/-, in default a further period of three months rigorous imprisonment. 3. on appeal before this court, the matter was remanded to the sessions judge to determine the age of the appellant. the sessions judge in his report dated 24.1.2000 has recorded the following conclusions and findings:- ''in view of the evidence discussed above, the finding is given that at the time of commission of offence on dated 7.3.1998 in case fir no. 114/1998 and the date of the commission of the offence on dated 10.4.1998 in case fir no. 169/1998 which are curtail date accused kavi @ m. stalin was about 14 years ....'' 4. reliance has been placed on gopi nath ghosh v. state of west bengal 1984 scc 228. the hon'ble supreme court had firstly voiced its concern about the failure to raise any objection as to the age of the accused in the courts below. the apex court took note of the provision of article 39(f) of the constitution which provides that the state shall direct its policy towards securing that children are given opportunities and facilities to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity and that childhood and youth are protected against exploitation and against moral and material abandonment. the hon'ble supreme court thereafter set aside the conviction and sentence. in the present case the same path must be traversed by this court. accordingly, the conviction and the sentence of the appellant are set aside as unsustainable. the appeals are allowed. 5. before departing from the case it would be necessary to extract the directions of the hon'ble.....