While the aforesaid orders were holding sway, the respondent, it is alleged, picked up Liam from the school on 13.10.2011 at about 1:30 p.m. and disappeared without intimating as to where she was taking Liam. Upon enquiry, it transpired that Liam had been taken by the respondent to her place of residence, i.e. 68, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi. 11. The respondent, it appears, instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act on 12.10.2011, and moved an interim application in those proceedings to seek a restraint against the petitioner from interfering in the respondent's custody of the minor son Liam. The definite case of the respondent was that she had the actual custody of child Liam. 12. This petition under Section 12 of the DV Act was registered as CC No.332/1 and came up before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 13.10.2011. The respondent/complainant was represented through her senior counsel Ms. Geeta Luthra with Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate. The petition had been filed by Sh. Shashank Kumar Lal, Advocate on behalf of the respondent. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after hearing the arguments of the respondents counsels, passed, inter alia, the following order: CONT
"68. In order to succeed in his purpose to discredit the complainant by fabricating and creating evidence, the respondent had filed two petitions against the complainant (1) guardianship of the youngest child under Section 7 and 10 of the Guardians and Wards Act. The said child was of around 4 years of age and the petition was filed in August, 2010. Although the respondent
An application has been filed now on behalf of complainant seeking permission to correct the typographical errors in the petition filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as DV Act). It is stated by counsel for complainant that due to inadvertence, certain typographical errors have occurred in the petition which are stated in the instant applications. The counsel for complainant further requests that correct complaint may be taken on record. Heard. The errors stated by the complainant in the instant application appear to be only typographical errors and do not change the cause of action in any manner. Therefore, application is allowed. Amended/corrected petition under Section 12 of DV Act is taken on record. Counsel for complainant has also filed uncertified copy of statement dated 09.09.2010 made by the complainant in the court of Ms. Ravinder Bedi, JSCC CUM ASJ Guardian Judge. However, the complainant has not filed any order dated 09.09.2010 passed by Ld. Guardian Judge.
respondent in her rejoinder to the second application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC before the learned Guardianship Judge. 29. Ms. Luthra points out that the conduct of the petitioner himself is not aboveboard, inasmuch, as, the petitioner filed an amended petition under the Guardianship Act in July 2011, wherein the petitioner, without the permission of the Court, introduced an averment in Column 4 as follows: "Custody of minor is with Mr. Douglas Breckenridge. At the time of filing of the petition Liam was in the illegal possession of the Respondent. However, on 30.09.2010 the custody of minor Liam has been reverted to the Petitioner". 30. Ms. Luthra submits that the respondent, being the mother, is entitled to protect her custody of the children under Section 21 of the DV Act. She defends the averments made by the respondent in her petition in para 68 under Section 12 of the DV Act. In support of her submissions aforesaid, she places reliance on the following decisions: i) Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd., Meerut v. Lakshmichand & Ors., (1963) Supp. SCR 242; ii) Dr. Manju Varma v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2004 (9) Scale 463; iii) Devarkonda Edl. Society