Orissa High Court dowry news: Considering the situation, where the allegations of Rs 50 lakh dowry demand and the subsequent suspicious death of a young mother, who left behind the nine-month-old infant, the Orissa High Court has set aside an order that refused to issue a search warrant for her son.While dealing with a plea by the mother of the deceased daughter, who sought a search warrant directed against the paternal in-laws and the recovery and production of her grandson, Justice Sanjeeb K Panigarhi noted that the mother of the infant died under suspicious circumstances, and a criminal case involving serious allegations, including offences relating to dowry death and cruelty, has already been registered against the husband and his family members.“The father of the child is also stated to be in judicial custody. In such circumstances, the concern expressed by the petitioner, who is the maternal grandmother of the child, regarding the welfare, safety and proper care of the infant cannot be said to be wholly unreasonable or unjustifiable,” the court said on May 18. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi said that both paternal and maternal family members are expected to act in manner conducive to emotional, physical and psychological well-being of infant child.Also Read | ‘Victim no longer alive’: Family can’t privately settle dowry death case, rules Allahabad High CourtUnderscoring that it is well settled that in all matters concerning the custody, care and protection of a minor child, the welfare and best interest of the child constitute the paramount consideration, this court observed that both the paternal and maternal family members are expected to act in a manner conducive to the emotional, physical and psychological well-being of the infant child, who has already suffered the irreparable loss of his mother at a tender age.‘Adequate safeguards required for proper upbringing of infant’This court finds that the trial court rejected the petition primarily on the ground that the infant was stated to be in the custody of his paternal family members and, therefore, the ingredients of Section 100 of the BNSS, 2023 were not prima facie made out.The magistrate observed that mere custody of the child with persons having a familial relationship with him could not, by itself, be construed as wrongful confinement within the meaning of Section 100 of the BNSS, which is legally not incorrect.At the same time, this court cannot overlook the peculiar and sensitive circumstances of the present case.This court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.Nevertheless, this court is of the considered view that adequate safeguards are required to ensure the well-being, health and proper upbringing of the infant child, aged about nine months.If the child is found to be properly cared for by the paternal family members, the trial court shall nevertheless ensure that the petitioner, being the maternal grandmother, is granted reasonable visitation and access to the child so that the infant is not deprived of the love, affection and emotional support of the maternal side of the family.It is directed that upon production of a certified copy of this order, the trial court shall conduct an appropriate enquiry regarding the present condition, care, safety and welfare of the infant child.In the event the magistrate finds that the child is not being properly looked after or that his welfare is likely to be adversely affected, the magistrate shall be at liberty to take such appropriate steps as permissible under law in the interest and welfare of the child.Mother’s aleged dowry death and question infant’s well beingThe petitioner alleged that her daughter was subjected to continuous physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in-laws following their marriage in 2020, with a demand for additional dowry of Rs 50 lakhs.It was further alleged that, upon failure to meet such demand, the accused persons repeatedly assaulted and tortured the deceased. It is further alleged that on February 1, the accused persons forcibly administered BP tablets to the deceased and shifted her to a hospital at Berhampur.On receiving such information and suspecting foul play, the informant attempted to contact her daughter and subsequently visited both her matrimonial home and the hospital on February 2, where the attending doctor declared the deceased dead. The informant further noticed multiple injury marks on various parts of the body of the deceased, suggesting severe physical assault before her death.Story continues below this adThe petitioner was challenging the April 3 order of the trial court, which declined to exercise jurisdiction under Section 100 of the BNSS, 2023, rejecting the prayer for issuance of a search warrant against the opposite party for recovery and production of a 9-month-old minor child of her deceased daughter.Arguments of partiesAppearing for the petitioner, advocate Trilochan Nanda submitted that the April 3 order passed by the trial court was wholly unsustainable in law, being arbitrary, contrary to the settled principles governing Section 100 of the BNSS, 2023, and vitiated by patent non-application of judicial mind.He stated that the deceased, who was the daughter of the petitioner and was blessed with two sons, was born in September 2020 and June 2025. It was contended that following the unnatural death of the petitioner’s daughter, the elder child has been residing with the petitioner, whereas the younger child, who is aged about nine months, has been forcibly retained and concealed by the in-laws.Despite repeated requests, the petitioner has neither been allowed to meet the child nor informed about his whereabouts, giving rise to a serious apprehension regarding the safety, welfare, and well-being of the infant.Story continues below this adHe further argued that the mother of the child died under highly suspicious circumstances and a criminal case involving serious allegations, including dowry death, and the father of the child is presently in judicial custody.“In such peculiar and alarming circumstances, the welfare, safety, and protection of the infant ought to have been treated as paramount consideration, which, according to the petitioner, the learned court below failed to take into account while rejecting the petition,” He submitted.State as well as counsel appearing for the in-laws submitted that the infant is presently in the custody of his paternal family members, who are natural guardians after the parents, and, therefore, the essential ingredients of Section 100 of the BNSS are not prima facie attracted.