LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


3-year-old sent to orphanage as parents fight divorce case


It is said that in the fight between a husband and a wife, it is always the kids who suffer the worst. In an unfortunate incident, a 3-year-old girl was on Thursday sent to an orphanage as her mother refused to take her custody and father was sentenced for 300 days of imprisonment for having failed to pay maintenance to his wife.

The mother asked the court to send her husband to jail as he failed to pay her for her maintenance. However, after sending the husband to jail, when the question of the custody of their daughter arose, she refused, saying she cannot afford. Even the parents of the man refused to take care of the girl. After continuous discussions and argument since last week on the custody of the girl, the family court on Thursday was left with no other option but to send the girl to an orphanage.

Ranison Thakor and Snehal Thakor, residents of Bapunagar, have been fighting their divorce case. The family court in Ahmedabad had ordered Ranison to pay for maintenance to his wife. However, Ranison failed to pay the amount for 30 months.

The principle judge of family court, BM Karia, on October 13 sent Ranison for judicial custody for 300 days.

The court had to stay its order at 11pm as the parents of Ranison also refused to take the custody of the girl. Ranison was soon released from the jail and was handed over the girl by the police.

The court gave time to Ranison either to pay the amount or arrange for the custody of the child. He failed to do the both. While he could not arrange for the money, none of the family members or friends came forward to take the custody of the girl.

After the release of Ranison, the court again asked Snehal to take the custody of the girl. She refused to take the girl's custody and on Tuesday moved an application to send Ranison to jail. She reasoned that she cannot take the custody of her child as she has two younger brothers and a mother to feed. Instead, she said that Ranison is just delaying the payment and taking the shield of the daughter so that he does not need to go to jail and he would not pay for the maintenance.

Meanwhile, Ranison pleaded that he cannot pay the amount as he has no resources and is unemployed at present. He agreed that he soon would pay the amount but the custody of the girl meanwhile be given to Snehal.

However, when both the parents and the family members refused to take care of the girl, the court finally in the interest of the justice, ordered to send the three-year-old girl to an orphanage. Ranison was sent to jail.


 12 Replies

kumar t v s (advocate)     24 October 2011

Neither the father nor mother has any right to produce the child and later deny the child's custody on the ground that they cannot maintain the child.


If there is any provision in IPC for abandoning the child, the section should be slapped on both of them and punished accordingly.

Originally posted by :kumar t v s
Neither the father nor mother has any right to produce the child and later deny the child's custody on the ground that they cannot maintain the child.


If there is any provision in IPC for abandoning the child, the section should be slapped on both of them and punished accordingly.

very truely said.!

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     25 October 2011

In my opinion the PJ (Principal Judge) of the FAMILY COURT shall be sent back to Judicial Academy by self imposing such harsh child protection Order that also under FAMILY COURT ACT in the name of maintenence to a wife !.

Reasoning with chapter of Law in instance news to have been applied judiciously instead; It is a conflicting comment on Judiciary by me and I stand by it for Contempt be it so and if have patience read down;


1. Family Courts were established to make families (means to unite somehow families)and not to break families. This is the reason Family Courts are heavily critised across India by radicals.



The Family Court Judges under FCA,1984 are supposed to make last but also another THE LAST efforts to bind a family together and that is the reason under FCA, 1984 it is intention of the Legislation to add as a Rule that is "Family Courts can make its own Rules to dispense with Justice and not seems to have done Justice kar key". Read its Bare Act to see this Rule in b&w mentioned there !

By this news quoted approach was Justice done to the child ?

NO and



3. There is a huge paradigm shift in approach to child protection before and by establishing Family Courts as per GCA, 1984 where ever possible in India and some of those paradigm shifts are as follows;


FROM welfare of children TO development of children in conflict with Law


FROM institutional & residential care for children TO non-institutional & family based alternative programs


FROM custodial care in institutions TO holistic development through quality child care in institutions.


FROM segregation & isolation from society TO inclusion & mainstreaming in society.

The PJ of this Family Court ignored set principles as laid down by UN Conventions of the Rights of the Child of which India is signatory and Family Court is bound to follow such ratifications clauses, commas to full stops therein. I am saddened to see the draconian approach followed by this PJ that also of a Family Court.



4. Art. 14, 15, 15 (3), 19 (1) (a), 21, 21 (a), 23 (1), 24, 39 (e), 39 (f) and 45 COI have a direct reference and impact on the welfare and development of the nation's children.



5. The solution which this Family Court should have followed as per its wide discretionary powers provided by RULES as laid down in FCA, 1984 is to see aptitude of husband towards manual to semi skilled to skilled working capacity and every district have register of Employees whom 'fixing' this husband should have been done to draw a INCOME. From that income part of maint. should have been recovered to satisfy the Order of the Court as well as wife's present incapacitation. Further the Family Court could easily execute such job oriented Orders by calling to Court registered Employers from local Employment Exchange and asking them to provide as per husband's skill a job to him under (monthly) supervision of the local Jurisdiction Police Station (for making all concerned parties safe and secure) so that not only this husband / natural guardian is gainfully employed but a income is also drawn from his skill sets and wife is also partly paid for arrears in maint. instead of with one stroke three peoples from a family have gone three separate ways by a freak Order is my view.



6. With a Job provided as per discretionary powers of a PJ of a Family Court the child would not have been abandoned and handed over to the Institution where this female child most probably will end up neglected and grew up in a very sorry stage as no "supervision - follow up" by same Court is mentioned except "send the child to an Institution" which I found not a right approach that also from a family Court.



7. It is fundamental responsibility of every adult to "ensure every child a childhood' which is the most basic a adult can ever give to a child. I find this adult responsibility of Court's PJ missing in such news items (Orders of a Family Court).



8. The Family Court under its vast powers should have gone for and or provided in instance news reporting a non - institutional approach as intervention for child protection. The non - institutional services are purely based on Article 20 and 21 of the UN CRC and the conviction that "every child's best interests are met in a nurturing family environment and it is every child's basic right to be brought up in a family" Meaning thereby the PJ of this Family Court could have easily arranged for substitute family care when the child's own family of origin cannot look after him due to special circumstances. Further each District Judge Court everyday gets flooded with Adoption application and CARA representative queuing up in Courts to give their approval or home study reports. I mean this PJ could have taken services of CARA as well as personally called some of these applicants waiting for adoption to have offered after due diligence this unfortunate female child upon adoption to a FAMILY instead of throwing her to institutional care with ONE STROKE OF PEN ! Further it is considered as the best non-institutional service for the orphaned, abandoned, destitute child since it provides permanent planning and substitute care "in a family environment". Well when the birth parents relinquish a child permanently (as in this news reporting), due to compelling circumstances, an adoptive family would be the best alternative for the child without parental care that also for a 3 years female child !



8. A ld. member wishful thinking on IPC section usage here was noticed by me and I say why go extra mile to fish in IPC when under JJA, 1986 (2000 - 2006) under S. 23 you have 6 months imprisonment or fine punishment option available to implement to both natural parents “for abandoning, exposing or intentionally neglecting child or causing him to be abandoned, exposed or neglected such that it is likely to cause the child mental or physical suffering” is what this Section speaks about.



9. Further Family Courts Judges cannot override S. 29 be it that FCA is a special provisions which is about Child Welfare Committee (CWC) recommendations and without referring the case to CWC passing such Orders is bad in eyes of Law is my addendum comment.



10. This is case where "surrender" of a child by the birth / biological parents have taken place and in such cases the JJA, 1986 has laid clear procedures which in my opinion this Judge of a Family Court has not followed and may be not reported by the media whatever….. Some of those procedures are mandatory such as signing away of a DOS (Document of Surrender). The surrender / relinquishment of a child can be done only by the biological parent and not by a Family Court on its own motion! The procedure to be followed for an abandoned child in instance case is that it is as per guidelines of CWC (Child Welfare Committee). This DOS cannot be executed by any relative / guardian of the child so calling relatives to pick child was a futile exercise to wash its hand off which I smell here.



11. Infants / children between 0-3 yrs. are kept in child care institution (CCI) that have a child care home, a foster care home or specialized adoption agency (SAA). Then the CWC passes an Order for the child to be given in safe custody to any of the recognized child care institutions. The procedure to be followed are in S. 41 JJA, 1986 (2000 – 2006) or refer to sections on Adoption. Then the enquiry of the CWC is to be completed within a four month period in the Best Interest of the Child.

Hope PJ’s of Family Court read these comments from generic public and or media becomes more responsible in legal news quotings.... whatever I end this large note feeling sad and visualize how a small female child will miss her reasoning age Diwali for the first time………………………

2 Like

Rohit Shukla (Engineer)     25 October 2011

This is cruelty ..... Both the parents should be punished severly for neglecting their parental responsibility irrespective of any prevailing conditions.

@ Tajobs - Hats off Sir, I am amazed with your reasoning and understanding on such a sensitive issue.  Can this guy appeal against this verdict? One more thing, how does any Honarable judge decide the Number of days a person should be imprisoned in such cases? 300 days looks too much.





If  both the parents and the family members refused to take care of the girl then what court will do ?

Only have an option to send the three-year-old girl to an orphanage.orphanage condition is not so good in india.

I think the judge should consider the punishment which is given in juvenile justice act 2000.


23. Punishment for cruelty to juvenile or child.- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control  over, a juvenile or the child, assaults, abandons, exposes or wilfully neglects the juvenile or 

causes or procures him to be assaulted, abandoned, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to  cause such juvenile or the child unnecessary mental or physical suffering shall be punishable with  imprisonment for a team which may extend to six months, or fine, or with both.


Aapko to Family court ka judge hona chahiye.Hats off  to you.



papaji gr8888!!!!!  isliye aap mere papaji ho!!!







Aapko to Family court ka judge hona chahiye.Hats off  to you.

kindly dont pray like this...all maintenance asking METRO WIVEs will die of hunger if papaji become judge of FC...


I think the girl is more responsible.The husband is already serving jail term.So how can he bepunished for not caring for the girl?Do you expect him to keep the child alongwith him in his cell so that he can care for her?


The mum needs to be punished.She's more worried about her bro and mother;but not about her child.

1 Like

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     25 October 2011

@ Rohit
"Can this guy appeal against this verdict?
Take : Actually NO. This provision is specialty of a metro wife an dnot of Indian Men.
Reasoning: Family Court laws of precedence works around 'sentiments and emotions' of a metro wife -cum- mother and not for a 'seed giver kolhu ka bail"

"One more thing, how does any Honorable Judge decide the Number of days a person should be imprisoned in such cases? 300 days looks too much."
Take : It is standard practice as in Law of precedents drilled right from Hon'ble SC to State's HC's that for each default of maint. 1 month maximum prison times cumulative maximum prison should not exceed 1 year and this ld. Judge is found of holidays hence 65 days holidays out of a maximum 1 year (365 days) grace extended to this natural father which is a gracious operating part of the so called Order. Further this natural father has already given up (surrendered) as per daily records of the Court his natural guardianship rights by fluke of maint. Laws of the land hence Appeal before a DB in State HC is bound to be dismissed suo-motto and well in Gujarat we donot have duplicate of ex Justc Dhingra like personality who would have seen a spade as a spade :-) 

@ Princess
Take -
No ld. lawyer brothers here will comment now that 'mother's lap is compulsory for a girl child" including you following the same wishful thinking footsteps which is understandable the way we are asked to read and interpret such afterthoughts............ ta ra rum pum pum
Reasoning: Visit any local Jail and see and meet female under trials there and the sorry thing one notices are presence of lots of tiny tots cuddled to the bossoms of lots of female mother under trials living inside Jail !. Same punishment could have been awarded based on uniform applicable theory in practice as in law followed and peddled by lawyers -cum- Judges to send this metro wife -cum- mother to Jail for inflicting neglect, abandonment and cruelty on a infant. Now the prudent societal thinking here is will you feminist authors subscribe to this reasoned based on point of Law thinking and re-phrase your above remark by putting father in double hell situation whereas mother who gave birth to female child is left out scout free??? Now where is balance of principles of Natural Justice in this news media reporting which is based on reporting of the Order and feminist writers producing News items responsibility in the name of 'information sharing" as you seven dwarfs of a Cinderella vehemently push readers to force read such news media reporting!

@ Goodgirl.....

Even without being Judge in this media reporting based on a Courts Order the metro wife for another 300 days will still not get any maint. to even look after her bro / sister and side by side already lost a child of her own cumulatively for 40 months i.e. past 30 months father did not pay maint. hence sent to jail for next 10 months and it is highly debatable that he can ever meet past arrears of 40 months (whose meter will be still running ON) once he comes out after 10 months spent in Jail! After being let out he can’t be prosecuted to go to Jail again for any no. of months as SC directive says maximum 1 year! Hence this man can always seek divorce and re-marry and re-produce another child but who is the biggest looser out of a fluke of a Court Order, in my opinion - first the female protagonist and then this father -cum- soon to be ex-husband.......

Hence Oh metro wives seek maint. with well social reasoning behind such forced seeking of RIGHTS least you loose everything (DUTIES) on the go (means at the end)…………………………………………………

Keep thinking larger picture for a better tomorrow..........


3 Like


Goodgirl,goodgirl...Hum dono larkiya kitni lucky hai ki humare nakhre jhelne wale paalne wale Arun chacha(tumhare papa) hai.Aisi kismat sabki kaha hoti hai.


Chachaji ro mat.Aap rote hue achhe nahi lagte.Please apni naak poch lo or strategize karo ki us 3 saal ki larki ka kya bhala karna chahiye





this is another example how b*st*rds are born... the remedy is not available in our justice system... india is really backward... there are millions of orfans and one more added... our law should include emotions... what goes through the small child... it seems all involved are culprits even the judge... how senseless he can be when the child has the mother and how can he send the child to somewhere else and not to her mother?  when he can send father to gallows why not wife as well?  why that b*tch is bent up sucking her brothers and mother ignoring her own blood... and the  legal reforms is any one bothered?...

1 Like


Learned lawyers

1. Is there room to make a petition to Human rights commission ? 


2, Can the grand parents or other relatives of the child make a petition for guardianship. 


Sameer12345 (SSE)     25 January 2012

Considering Husband completes 300 days of imprisonment and comes out of jail, He AGAIN fails or negates to pay maintenance.


Would there be another imprisonment for non payment of maintance after release from jail? 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register