Family Matters - Landmark Judgements by the SC

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on DUTY of family courts

43. The decision in Sureshta Devi (supra) was rendered by a Bench of two learned Judges of this
Court. In a subsequent decision of two learned Judges of this Court in the case of Ashok Hurra
Vs. Rupa Bipin Zaveri – (1997) 4 SCC 226, the judgment in Sureshta Devi (supra) was doubted
as according to the learned Judges some of the observations in Sureshta Devi (supra) appear to
be too wide and require reconsideration in an appropriate case.

44. Learned Judges in Ashok Hurra (supra) made it clear that they were passing the order in that
case on the peculiar fact situation. This Court also held that in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution, a decree of divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B of the
Act was granted between the parties. (See paragraph 16 and 22 of the report).

45. It appears that those observations were made by the learned Judges without considering the
provisions of the Family Courts Act. In any event, the decision in Ashok Hurra (supra) was
considered by a larger Bench of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra and Anr.
– (2002) 4 SCC 388. No doubt was expressed by the larger Bench on the principles laid down
in Sureshta Devi (supra). It appears that a petition for review was filed against the two judge
decision in Ashok Hurra (supra) and the same was dismissed.

Thereafter, the question before the Constitution Bench in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra) was as
follows:-

“Whether the judgment of this Court dated 10.3.1997 in Civil Appeal No.1843 of 1997 [1997
(4) SCC 226] can be regarded as a nullity and whether a writ petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution can be maintained to question the validity of a judgment of this Court after
the petition for review of the said judgment has been dismissed are, in our opinion, questions
which need to be considered by a Constitution Bench of this Court.”

46. In the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra (supra), this Court did
not express any view contrary to the views of this Court in Sureshta Devi (supra).

47. We endorse the views taken by this Court in Sureshta Devi (supra) as we find that on a proper
construction of the provision in Section 13B (1) and 13B (2), there is no scope of doubting the
views taken in Shreshta Devi (supra). In fact the decision which was rendered by the two learned
Judges of this Court in Ashok Hurra (supra) has to be treated to be one rendered in the facts of
that case and it is also clear by the observations of the learned Judges in that case.

48. None of the counsel for the parties argued for reconsideration of the ratio in Sureshta Devi
(supra).

49. We are of the view that it is only on the continued mutual consent of the parties that decree for
divorce under Section 13B of the said Act can be passed by the Court. If petition for divorce is
not formally withdrawn and is kept pending then on the date when the Court grants the decree,
the Court has a statutory obligation to hear the parties to ascertain their consent. From the
absence of one of the parties for two to three days, the Court cannot presume his/her consent as
has been done by the learned Family Court Judge in the instant case and especially in its facts
situation, discussed above.

50. In our view it is only the mutual consent of the parties which gives the Court the jurisdiction to
pass a decree for divorce under Section 13B. So in cases under Section 13B, mutual consent of
the parties is a jurisdictional fact. The Court while passing its decree under Section 13B would
be slow and circumspect before it can infer the existence of such jurisdictional fact. The Court

page no. | 42 |

Smruti Pahariya Versus Sanjay Pahariya

has to be satisfied about the existence of mutual consent between the parties on some tangible
materials which demonstrably disclose such consent. In the facts of the case, the impugned
decree was passed within about three weeks from the expiry of the mandatory period of six
months without actually ascertaining the consent of the husband, the respondent herein.
51. It is nobody’s case that a long period has elapsed between the expiry of period of six months and
the date of final decree.
52. For the reasons aforesaid, we affirm the view taken by the learned Judges of the Bombay High
Court in the order under appeal.
53. The appeal is disposed of as follows:-
(i) On receipt of the copy of this judgment, the Family Court is directed to issue notice to

both the parties to appear in the Court on a particular day for taking further steps in the
case.
(ii) On that day, the parties are at liberty to engage their own counsel and they may be personally
present before the Court and inform the Court as to whether they have consent to the
passing of the decree under Section 13B of the Act. If both the parties give their consent
for passing of the decree under Section 13B, the Court may pass appropriate orders.
(iii) If any of the parties makes a representation that he/she does not have consent to the passing
of the decree, the Court may dispose of the proceedings in the light of the observations
made by us. There shall be no order as to costs.

qqq

page no. | 43 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on DUTY of family courts

K.A. Abdul Jaleel Versus T.A. Shahida

Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice AR. Lakshmanan

K.A. Abdul Jaleel
Versus

T.A. Shahida

Appeal (Civil) 3322 of 2003

(2003) 4 SCC 166

Decided on : 10th April, 2003

The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family
Courts with a view to promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement
of, disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected
therewith. From a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons, it appears
that the said Act, inter-alia, seeks to exclusively provide within the jurisdiction
of the Family Courts the matters relating to the property of the spouses or
either of them. Section 7 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of the Family
Court in respect of suits and proceedings as referred to in the Explanation
appended thereto. Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 refers to a suit or
proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of
the parties or of either of them.

Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha :—
Leave granted.
Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the properties
of divorced parties arises for consideration in this appeal. The said question arises out of a judgment
and order dated 20.03.2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing an appeal
from an order passed by the Family Court, Ernakulam, dated 22.07.1998 in O.P. No.343 of 1996.
The parties to this appeal were married on 03.01.1988. A female child was born out their wedlock on
11.10.1988. Allegedly, after the birth of the second child, owing to deterioration in the health of the
respondent herein, the relationship of the parties became strained. The respondent contended that at the
time of marriage, a large amount in cash as also gold ornaments were given. From the cash amount the
appellant herein purchased a property described in Schedule ‘A’ of the petition on 01.02.1988. The balance
amount was kept by the appellant. He allegedly further sold the gold ornaments of the respondent and
out of the sale proceeds he purchased the property described in Schedule ‘B’ of the petition.
In respect of properties an agreement marked Exhibit A1 was executed by the parties, in terms whereof
it was agreed that the properties purchased from the aforesaid amount will be transferred in the name
of the respondent by the appellant. The appellant herein pronounced Talaq on 01.11.1995 after his

page no. | 44 |

K.A. Abdul Jaleel versus T.A. Shahida

relationship with the respondent became strained. In terms of the said agreement dated 17.09.1994,
the respondent filed a suit marked O.S. No.85 of 1995 in the Family Court on 08.12.1995. The appellant
in his written statement alleged that the said agreement was signed by him under threat and coercion
and further contended that several documents purported to have been executed by him in support
thereof were also obtained by applying force. Both the parties examined themselves as also proved
various documents in the said suit before the Family Court.
The Family Court by a judgment and order dated 22.07.1998 decreed the suit in favour of the respondent
herein upon arriving at a finding that she was the absolute owner of the Schedule ‘A’ property as also
23/100 shares in the Schedule ‘B’ property.
Aggrieved thereby and dissatisfied therewith, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court
which was marked as MFA No.196 of 1999. By reason of the impugned judgment dated 20.03.2001,
the said appeal has been dismissed.
Mr. Haris Beeran, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that having
regard to the provisions contained in Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court
had no jurisdiction to decide a dispute as regards properties claimed by a divorced wife. The learned
counsel would urge that the jurisdiction exercisable by any Family Court being between the parties
to a marriage which would mean parties to a subsisting marriage. In support of the said contention
strong reliance has been placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in
Amjum Hasan Siddiqui vs. Smt.Salma B. [AIR 1992 (Allahabad) 322] and Ponnavolu Sasidar vs. Sub-
Registrar, Hayatnagar and Others [AIR 1992 (A.P.) 198].
Mr. T.L.V. Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand,
would contend that the matter is covered by an inter-parties judgment passed by a Division Bench
of the Kerala High Court which is since reported in [1997 (1) KLT 734]. As the appellant herein did
not question the correctness of the said judgment, he cannot be permitted to turn round and now
challenge the jurisdiction the Family Court.
The Family Courts Act was enacted to provide for the establishment of Family Courts with a view to
promote conciliation in, and secure speedy settlement of, disputes relating to marriage and family
affairs and for matters connected therewith. From a perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons,
it appears that the said Act, inter alia, seeks to exclusively provide within the jurisdiction of the Family
Courts the matters relating to the property of the spouses or either of them. Section 7 of the Act
provides for the jurisdiction of the Family Court in respect of suits and proceedings as referred to in
the Explanation appended thereto. Explanation (c) appended toSection 7 refers to a suit or proceeding
between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them.
The fact of the matter, as noticed hereinbefore, clearly shows that the dispute between the parties to the
marriage arose out of the properties claimed by one spouse against the other. The respondent herein
made a categorical statement to the effect that the properties were purchased out the amount paid in
cash or by way of ornaments and the source of consideration for purchasing the properties described
in Schedules ‘A’ and ‘B’ of the suit having been borne out of the same, the appellant herein was merely
a trustee in relation thereto and could not have claimed any independent interest thereupon. It is also
apparent that whereas the agreement marked as Exhibit A1 was executed on 17.09.1994, the appellant
pronounced Talaq on 01.11.1995. The wordings ‘disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for
matters connected therewith’ in the view of this Court must be given a broad construction. The Statement
of Objects and Reasons, as referred to hereinbefore, would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the
Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would

page no. | 45 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on DUTY of family courts

clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other; irrespective of the
claim whether property is claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise.
The submission of the learned counsel to the effect that this Court should read the words “a suit or
proceeding between the parties to a marriage” as parties to a subsisting marriage, in our considered
view would lead to miscarriage of justice.
The Family Court was set up for settlement of family disputes. The reason for enactment of the said Act
was to set up a court which would deal with disputes concerning the family by adopting an approach
radically different from that adopted in ordinary civil proceedings. The said Act was enacted despite
the fact that Order 32A of the Code of Civil Procedure was inserted by reason of the Code of Civil
Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976, which could not bring about any desired result.
It is now a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of a court created specially for resolution
of disputes of certain kinds should be construed liberally. The restricted meaning if ascribed to
Explanation (c) appended to Section 7 of the Act, in our opinion, would frustrate the object wherefor
the Family Courts were set up.
In Amjum Hasan Siddiqui’s case (supra) an application was filed in terms of Section 3 of the Muslim
Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. The question before the Allahabad High Court
arose as to whether a Family Court could deal with such a dispute. It was held that no application
could lie before the Family Court as the claim under Section 3 of the 1986 Act would neither be a
suit nor a proceeding within the meaning of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act inasmuch as such
an application could only be moved before the First Class Magistrate having requisite jurisdiction as
provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The said decision, in our opinion, cannot be said to
have any application whatsoever in the instant case.
In Smt. P. Jayalakshmi and Another vs. V. Revichandran and Another [AIR 1992 AP 190], the Andhra
Pradesh High Court was dealing with a case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was
held that although the matrimonial proceeding was moved before the Family Court, the same could not
have provided for a legal bar for the wife and the minor child for instituting a proceeding under Section 125
of the Code of Criminal Prcoedure at Tirupathi where they were residing; as both the rights are separate.
As indicated hereinbefore, Balakrishnan, J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for a Division Bench in a
matter arising out of a preliminary issue on the question of jurisdiction held that the dispute over properties
between parties to a marriage cannot be confined to the parties to a subsisting marriage. We agree with the
said view. The said decision being inter- parties and having attained finality would operate as res judicata.
The further contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that as the
respondent had already filed an application under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986, wherein an amount of Rs.1,33,200/- was awarded in her favour, the
impugned proceeding was not maintainable.
The two proceedings are absolutely separate and distinct. The impugned judgment does not show that
the said question was even argued before the High Court. As indicated hereinbefore, the factual issue
involved in this appeal revolved round as to whether Exhibit A1 was obtained by applying force or
undue influence upon the appellant. The said contention has been negatived by both the Family Court
as also the High Court.
We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed with costs. Counsel’s fee assessed at
Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only).

qqq

page no. | 46 |

LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON

CUSTODY OF CHILD,
VISITATION RIGHTS &
SHARED PARENTING



Gaytri Bajaj versus Jiten Bhalla

Gaytri Bajaj versus Jiten Bhalla

Supreme Court of India

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi

Gaytri Bajaj Appellant
Versus

Jiten Bhalla Respondent

Civil Appeal Nos. 7232-7233 of 2012

(Arising out of SLP (Civil) 35468-69 of 2009)

Decided on 5 October, 2012

• The appellant (wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on 10.12.1992.
Two daughters, Kirti and Ridhi, were born to them on 20.8.1995 and 19.4.2000
respectively. Disputes and differences having developed between the parties a joint
petition dated 23.05.2003 was presented by the parties under Section 13 B of the
Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking a decree of divorce by
mutual consent. In the joint petition filed, it was stated by both the parties that they
have been living separately since December, 2001, due to irreconcilable differences
and in view of their separate residence and lack of any co-habitation as husband and
wife, the parties, upon failure to effect any reconciliation of their differences, have
agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent under the provisions of section
13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

• The parties before us have agitated only the question with regard to the custody of the
children and if such custody is to remain with the husband the visitation rights, if any,
that should be granted to the appellant-wife. As the above is only issue raised before
us by the parties we propose to deal only with the same and refrain from entering into
any other question.

• The above issue, i.e. custody of the children has already received an elaborate
consideration of this Court. Such consideration is recorded in the earlier order of this
court dated 16.12.2011. From the aforesaid order, it appears that proceeding on the
basis of the statement made by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the
appellant wife that if the issue of visitation rights of the wife is considered by the
court, she would not urge any other contention, this court had made an endeavour to
explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties
on the said score. After interacting with both the children this court in its order dated
16.12.2011 had recorded that the two children, who are aged about 17 and 11 years,
were very clear and categorical that they wanted to continue to live with their father
and they do not want to go with their mother.

page no. | 49 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

• This Court, therefore, was of the view that taking away the custody of the children
from the father will not be desirable. In fact such a step would be adverse to the best
interest of the children. However, keeping in mind the position of the appellant as the
mother it was decided that the mother should be allowed to make an initial contact
with the children and gradually built up a relationship, if possible, so as to arrive
at a satisfactory solution to the impasse. Accordingly, the Court made the following
interim arrangement:

(i) The respondent-husband is directed to bring both daughters, namely, Kirti Bhalla and
Ridhi Bhalla to the Supreme Court Mediation Center at 10 a.m. on Saturday of every
fortnight and hand over bo`th of them to the petitioner-wife. The mother is free to
interact with them and take them out and keep them in her house for overnight stay.
On the next day, i.e. Sunday at 10 a.m. the petitioner-wife is directed to hand over the
children at the residence of the respondent- husband. The above arrangement shall
commence from 17.12.2011 and continue till the end of January, 2012.

(ii) The respondent-husband is directed to inform the mobile number of elder daughter
(in the course of hearing we were informed that she is having separate mobile phone)
and also landline number to enable the petitioner-wife to interact with the children.

• In the present case irrespective of the question whether the abandonment of
visitation rights by the wife was occasioned by the fraud or deceit practiced on her, as
subsequently claimed, an attempt was made by this Court, even by means of a personal
interaction with the children, to bring the issue with regard to custody and visitation
rights to a satisfactory conclusion. From the materials on record, it is possible to
conclude that the children, one of whom is on the verge of attaining majority, do not
want to go with their mother. Both appear to be happy in the company of their father
who also appears to be in a position to look after them; provide them with adequate
educational facilities and also to maintain them in a proper and congenial manner.
The children having expressed their reluctance to go with the mother, even for a short
duration of time, we are left with no option but to hold that any visitation right to
the mother would be adverse to the interest of the children. Besides, in view of the
reluctance of the children to even meet their mother, leave alone spending time with
her, we do not see how such an arrangement, i.e., visitation can be made possible by
an order of the court.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Gogoi :—
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 08.09.2008 passed by the High

Court of Delhi in Matrimonial Appeal No. 72/2007 and the order dated 10.7.2009 declining
review of the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2008.

page no. | 50 |

Gaytri Bajaj versus Jiten Bhalla

3. The facts lies in a short compass and may be usefully recapitulated at this stage. The appellant
(wife) and the respondent (husband) were married on 10.12.1992. Two daughters, Kirti and
Ridhi, were born to them on 20.8.1995 and 19.4.2000 respectively. Disputes and differences
having developed between the parties a joint petition dated 23.05.2003 was presented by the
parties under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking
a decree of divorce by mutual consent. In the joint petition filed, it was stated by both the parties
that they have been living separately since December, 2001, due to irreconcilable differences
and in view of their separate residence and lack of any co-habitation as husband and wife, the
parties, upon failure to effect any reconciliation of their differences, have agreed to dissolve their
marriage by mutual consent under the provisions of section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

4. It appears that without waiting for the period prescribed under Section 13B (2) of the Act,
a second Motion was moved by the parties before the learned Court on 26.05.2003 seeking
divorce by mutual consent. By order dated 3.6.2003 the learned trial court, after recording its
satisfaction in the matter, granted a decree of divorce under the aforesaid provision of the Act.
It may be specifically noticed, at this stage, that in the joint petition filed before the learned trial
court it was specifically stated that, under the terms of the agreement between the parties, the
respondent-husband was to have sole custody of the two minor daughters and the appellant-
wife had agreed to forego her rights of visitation keeping in view the best interest and welfare of
the children.

5. After the expiry of a period of almost three years from the date of decree of the divorce granted
by the learned trial court, the appellant- wife instituted a suit seeking a declaration that the
decree of divorce dated 3.6.2003 is null and void on the ground that her consent was obtained
by acts of fraud and deceit committed by the respondent husband. A further declaration that the
marriage between the parties is subsisting and for a decree of perpetual injunction restraining
the husband from marrying again was also prayed for in the suit. The respondent-husband filed
written statement in the suit denying the statements made and contesting the challenge to the
decree of divorce. While the aforesaid suit was pending, the appellant-wife filed an application
under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall/set aside the judgment and decree
dated 03.06.2003 passed in the divorce proceeding between the parties. The aforesaid application
under section 151 of the Code was filed despite the institution of the separate suit seeking the
same/similar reliefs. On the basis of the aforesaid application filed by the appellant-wife the
learned trial court by order dated 25.09.2007 recalled the decree of divorce dated 3.6.2003.
Aggrieved, an appeal i.e. Matrimonial appeal No. 72/2007, was filed by the respondent-husband
in the High Court of Delhi which was allowed by the order dated 08.09.2008. The application
seeking review of the aforesaid order dated 08.09.2008 was dismissed by the High Court on
10.07.2009. Both the aforesaid orders dated 08.09.2008 and 10.07.2009 have been assailed before
us in the present appeals.

6. In so far as the validity of the decree of divorce dated 03.06.2003 is concerned we do not propose
and also do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the said decree inasmuch as the
High Court, while setting aside the order of the learned trial court dated 25.09.2007 recalling
the decree of divorce, had clearly observed that it is open for the appellant-wife to establish the
challenge to the said decree made in the suit already instituted by her. Thus, while taking the
view that the order of the learned trial court dated 25.09.2007 recalling the decree of divorce was

page no. | 51 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

not correct, the High Court had left the question of validity of the decree, on ground of alleged
fraud, open for adjudication in the suit.
7. Apart from the above, the parties before us have agitated only the question with regard to the
custody of the children and if such custody is to remain with the husband the visitation rights, if
any, that should be granted to the appellant-wife. As the above is only issue raised before us by the
parties we propose to deal only with the same and refrain from entering into any other question.
8. We have already noticed that in the joint petition filed by the parties seeking a decree of divorce
by mutual consent it was clearly and categorically stated that the husband would have custody
of the children and the wife will not insist on any visitation rights. It was also stated that the wife
had agreed to do so in the interest and welfare of the children.
9. The above issue, i.e. custody of the children has already received an elaborate consideration of
this Court. Such consideration is recorded in the earlier order of this court dated 16.12.2011.
From the aforesaid order, it appears that proceeding on the basis of the statement made by Ms.
Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the appellant wife that if the issue of visitation rights
of the wife is considered by the court, she would not urge any other contention, this court had
made an endeavour to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement of the dispute between
the parties on the said score. After interacting with both the children this court in its order dated
16.12.2011 had recorded that the two children, who are aged about 17 and 11 years, were very
clear and categorical that they wanted to continue to live with their father and they do not want
to go with their mother.
This Court, therefore, was of the view that taking away the custody of the children from the
father will not be desirable. In fact such a step would be adverse to the best interest of the
children.
However, keeping in mind the position of the appellant as the mother it was decided that the
mother should be allowed to make an initial contact with the children and gradually built up a
relationship, if possible, so as to arrive at a satisfactory solution to the impasse. Accordingly, the
Court made the following interim arrangement:
(i) The respondent-husband is directed to bring both daughters, namely, Kirti Bhalla and

Ridhi Bhalla to the Supreme Court Mediation Center at 10 a.m. on Saturday of every
fortnight and hand over bo`th of them to the petitioner-wife. The mother is free to interact
with them and take them out and keep them in her house for overnight stay. On the next
day, i.e. Sunday at 10 a.m. the petitioner-wife is directed to hand over the children at
the residence of the respondent- husband. The above arrangement shall commence from
17.12.2011 and continue till the end of January, 2012.
(ii) The respondent-husband is directed to inform the mobile number of elder daughter (in
the course of hearing we were informed that she is having separate mobile phone) and also
landline number to enable the petitioner-wife to interact with the children.
10. What happened thereafter has been stated in an application filed by the respondent-husband
before this Court (Interlocutory Application No.4/2012) seeking vacation/modification of the
interim arrangement made by the order dated 16.12.2011. In the said application, it has been
stated that pursuant to the order dated 16.12.2011 the respondent-father along with both the
children had come to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre at about 10 a.m. on 17.12.2011.

page no. | 52 |

Gaytri Bajaj versus Jiten Bhalla

However, the children refused to go with their mother and the appointed Mediator, inspite of
all efforts, did not succeed in persuading the children. At about 1.30 p.m. the respondent, who
had left the children in the Mediation Centre, received a call that he should come and take
the children back with him. In the aforesaid I.A. it has been further stated that on 30.12.2011
when the children were due to visit the Mediation Centre once again, both the children started
behaving abnormally since the morning and had even refused to take any food. After reaching
the Mediation Centre, the children once again refused to go with their mother and the mediator
had also failed to convince the children.
Eventually, at about 12.00 p.m., the respondent took both the children home. Thereafter, both
the children have declined to visit the Mediation Centre any further. Before the next date for
appearance in the Mediation Centre, i.e., 14.01.2012 the said fact was informed to the learned
counsel for the appellant by the respondent through his counsel by letter dated 13.01.2012.
11. Though the above facts stated in the aforesaid I.A. are not mentioned in the report of the
Mediator submitted to this Court, what is stated in the aforesaid report dated 14.01.2012 is
that on 14.01.2012 the respondent and the children were not present and that a letter dated
13.01.2012 from the counsel for the respondent had been placed before the Mediator wherein it
has been stated that though the children had earlier attended the Mediation Centre they are now
refusing to come to the Centre and all efforts in this regard made by their father have failed. It
will also be significant to note that the statements made in the I.A. have not been controverted
by the appellant - wife in any manner.
12. The law relating to custody of minors has received an exhaustive consideration of this Court
in a series of pronouncements. In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal1 the principles of English
and American law in this regard were considered by this Court to hold that the legal position in
India is not in any way different. Noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saraswati
Bai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved2; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakkal3 and Thirty Hoshie
Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavdaksha Dolikuka4 this Court eventually concluded in paragraph 50 and
51 that: 50. That when the Court is confronted with conflicting demands made by the parents,
each time it has to justify the demands. The Court has not only to look at the issue on legalistic
basis, in such matters human angles are relevant for deciding those issues.
The Court then does not give emphasis on what the parties say, it has to exercise a jurisdiction
which is aimed at the welfare of the minor. As observed recently in Mousmi Moitra Gangulis
case the court has to give due weightage to the childs ordinary contentment, health, education,
intellectual development and favourable surroundings but over and above physical comforts,
the moral and ethical values have also to be noted. They are equal if not more important than
the others.
51. The word welfare used in section 13 of the Act has to be construed literally and must be

taken in its widest sense. The moral and ethical welfare of the child must also weigh with
the Court as well as its physical well being. Though the provisions of the special statutes
which governs the rights of the parents and guardians may be taken into consideration,

1 2009 (1) SCC 142
2 AIR 1941 (Bom.) 103
3 (1973) 1 SCC 840
4 (1982) 2 SCC 544

page no. | 53 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

there is nothing which can stand in the way of the Court exercising its parens patriae
jurisdiction arising in such cases.
13. The views expressed in Para 19 and 20 of the report in Mousmi Moitra Ganguli v. Jayant Ganguli5
would require special notice. In the said case it has been held that it is the welfare and interest
of the child and not the rights of the parents which is the determining factor for deciding the
question of custody. It was the further view of this Court that the question of welfare of the child
has to be considered in the context of the facts of each case and decided cases on the issue may
not be appropriate to be considered as binding precedents. Similar observations of this Court
contained in para 30 of the Report in Sheila B. Das v. P.R. Sugasree6 would also require a special
mention.
14. From the above it follows that an order of custody of minor children either under the provisions of
The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 or Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 is required
to be made by the Court treating the interest and welfare of the minor to be of paramount
importance. It is not the better right of the either parent that would require adjudication while
deciding their entitlement to custody. The desire of the child coupled with the availability of a
conducive and appropriate environment for proper upbringing together with the ability and
means of the concerned parent to take care of the child are some of the relevant factors that have
to be taken into account by the Court while deciding the issue of custody of a minor. What must
be emphasized is that while all other factors are undoubtedly relevant, it is the desire, interest
and welfare of the minor which is the crucial and ultimate consideration that must guide the
determination required to be made by the Court.
15. In the present case irrespective of the question whether the abandonment of visitation rights
by the wife was occasioned by the fraud or deceit practiced on her, as subsequently claimed, an
attempt was made by this Court, even by means of a personal interaction with the children, to
bring the issue with regard to custody and visitation rights to a satisfactory conclusion. From
the materials on record, it is possible to conclude that the children, one of whom is on the
verge of attaining majority, do not want to go with their mother. Both appear to be happy in
the company of their father who also appears to be in a position to look after them; provide
them with adequate educational facilities and also to maintain them in a proper and congenial
manner. The children having expressed their reluctance to go with the mother, even for a short
duration of time, we are left with no option but to hold that any visitation right to the mother
would be adverse to the interest of the children. Besides, in view of the reluctance of the children
to even meet their mother, leave alone spending time with her, we do not see how such an
arrangement, i.e., visitation can be made possible by an order of the court.
16. Taking into account all the aforesaid facts, we dismiss these appeals, affirm the impugned orders
passed by the High Court of Delhi and deny any visitation rights to the petitioner and further
direct that the children would continue to remain in the custody of their father until they attain
the age of majority.

qqq

5 (2008) 7 SCC 673
6 (2006) 3 SCC 62
page no. | 54 |

Sudarsana Rao Gadde Versus Karuna Gadde

Sudarsana Rao Gadde Versus Karuna Gadde

Supreme Court of India

Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Shantanagoudar

Sudarsana Rao Gadde
Versus

Karuna Gadde

Civil Appeal No(S). 2287/2018

[arising from SLP (C) Nos.17055 of 2017]

Decided on : 20th February, 2018

Appellant, father, filed the case for custody of his child. Several attempts were made for
peaceful and amicable settlement. The parties marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce
by mutual consent under section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. After prolonged
litigation for custody of minor child, the parties arrived at a settlement. Both the parties
were directed not to institute any case or petition or any complaint against each other or
members of the family on both sides with regard to disputes between the parties or on
custody of the child or on visitation without the leave of the court. Appellant was directed
to hand over the child to Respondent. Visitation and Custody rights as per settlement.

JUDGMENTS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph :—
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2017 passed in Civil

Revision No.1804/2017. The disputes are matrimonial in nature.
3. We had made several attempts for a peaceful and amicable settlement of the disputes, through

Mediators and also by the Court itself. In this connection, we may reproduce an order of this
Court dated 01.08.2017:-

"The parties are before us on account of a prolonged litigation for the custody of their minor
child Ayush. The parties along with the grandparents are here for quite a few days. We
painfully note that the child has not been attending the school for the last one month. Thanks
to the intervention of Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General, thanks to the
strenuous efforts of learned Senior counsel appearing for both sides, thanks to the cooperation
extended by the parties and finally due to the steps taken by this Court, the parties have now
arrived at a settlement.

The agreement dated 01.08.2017, duly signed by both the parties and their respective counsel
has been handed over to us in the Court today. The parties are present before us today. The
parties are directed to act according to the terms of the settlement which shall also form part of
this order. We direct both parties not to institute any case or petition or any complaint against
each other or the members of the family on both sides.

page no. | 55 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

They will not approach any forum with regard to any of the disputes between the parties
or on the custody of the child or on visitation without the leave of this Court. All litigations
pending between the parties shall remain stayed until further orders. We direct the petitioner
Sudarsana Rao Gadde to hand over the child at the residence of Karuna Gadde-respondent
before 1 p.m. on 02.08.2017. In case the presence of both the parents is required in the school,
they shall communicate with each other and both of them shall be present in the school. Post
this matter on 20.02.2018."

4. Today, the parties are personally present before us along with their child-Aayush. In Clause
(vi) of the Settlement, the parties have agreed on visitation and custody rights. In view of the
long litigations between the parties they have prayed for a decree of divorce by mutual consent.
Having interacted with the parties, we find that they have taken a conscious decision without
being influenced by any other extraneous factors. Accordingly, the marriage between the
appellant/Sudarsana Rao Gadde and respondent/Karuna Gadde is dissolved by a decree of
divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. The Settlement
dated 01.08.2017 arrived at between the parties is already on record and the same shall form part
of this judgment.

5. We direct the parties to strictly abide by the terms of Settlement.
6. Now that the parties have settled their disputes, we do not think it necessary to relegate them

to the respective Courts where other litigations are pending between them as they have agreed
to put an end to all the litigations. Accordingly, G.W.O.P. No. 2222 of 2016 on the file of the
Family Court at Rangareddy District, Miyapur, Hyderabad will stand disposed of in terms of the
Settlement dated 01.08.2017. O.P. No.2223/2016 pending before the Family Court at Rangareddy
District, Miyapore Hyderabad is decreed as per the abovementioned Settlement.
7. In terms of the Settlement, we restrain the parties from instituting any fresh case against each
other in respect of any dispute arising out of the Settlement dated 01.08.2017, without express
permission from this Court.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

qqq

page no. | 56 |

Meenal Bhargava Versus Naveen Sharma

Meenal Bhargava Versus Naveen Sharma

Supreme Court of India

Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. K. Sikri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

Meenal Bhargava .....Appellant(S)

Versus

Naveen Sharma.....Respondent(S)

Civil Appeal No. 3629 of 2018

Decided on : 9th May, 2018

The appellant has challenged the order against the findings of the High Court holding her
to be in contempt of its order and awarding the said punishment. The respondent feels
aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the High Court has refused to grant him the
custody of Pranav and showed him the route of execution. This, in nutshell, is the scope of
two appeals before this Court.

Unfortunate part is that instead of acknowledging the truth, parties are grumbling
continuously and complaining against each other. This accusation, castigation,
chargeability and dilation, depicting deviation from rectitude is a mindless exercise
and, in the process, true welfare of Pranav is sought to be sacrificed. We are compelled
to express these sentiments because of the reason that things have still not gone beyond
repair. Had the parties shown positive and cooperative attitude (which, we are sure, they
had demonstrated during mediation talks) they could still achieve an amiable resolution,
inasmuch as it is even now possible to work out the terms of the compromise that was
entered into between them. In fact, the respondent had expressed his willingness to go an
extra-mile to save the settlement and the matrimonial home. However, the appellant stood
firm in her attitude as she kept on saying that she could no longer repose confidence and
trust in the respondent. She has a grudge that respondent lured her into the settlement
with selfish motive to take away the custody of Pranav with no love towards her and his
moves lack bona fides. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained the position that
appellant was resorting to falsehood because of her selfish motives which were kept higher
in priority, even at the cost of family life.

However, we may re-emphasise that all is not lost and situation can still be brought under
control if there is a dispassionate and objective thinking by both the parties, keeping aside
their ego. Life has problems. Parties have to understand those problems and to reflect on
the reasons why these problems have arisen leading to such kind of disputes. Both the
parties have also to reflect on the future and to make up their mind on that basis as to
whether it would be in their interest, as well as in the interest of Pranav to bury the hatched
and have a new beginning.

page no. | 57 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

JUDGMENTS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri :—

These are the cross-appeals, filed by both the parties challenging different parts of the orders dated
January 9, 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Contempt Petition
No. 1846 of 2017. The parties are husband and wife. After their marriage in the year 2007, the wife
joined her husband in the United States of America (USA). Their child, named Pranav, was born out
of this wedlock in August, 2009 at Baltimore, USA. In 2010, they migrated to Canada. For certain
reasons, the matrimonial relations became strained and the wife viz. Meenal Bhargava (hereinafter
referred to as the appellant), left the company of her husband Naveen Sharma (hereinafter referred
to as the respondent) and on July 26, 2013, went away from her husband, taking Pranav with her.
Initially, for some time, she stayed in Buffalo, New York and thereafter came to India in August, 2013.
2. The respondent filed a case for custody of Pranav in a Canadian Court. Vide order dated

October 29, 2014, the Court granted temporary custody of Pranav to the respondent. By that
time, appellant had brought Pranav to India i.e. on August 4, 2013. After order dated October
29, 2014 granting temporary custody of Pranav was passed in favour of the respondent, the
mother of the appellant filed a motion in a Court at Canada stating that the said Court at Canada
had no jurisdiction in the matter. This contention was, however, rejected by the Court and,
thereafter on April 2, 2015, another order was passed directing the appellant to return Pranav to
its jurisdiction and appear before the Court on April 16, 2015. The appellant did not comply with
this order, which led to issuance of red corner notice by the FBI/Interpol against the appellant.
3. Since the appellant had travelled out of territorial jurisdiction of the Canadian Court and had
come to India with Pranav, finding no other alternative, the respondent herein filed a Habeas
Corpus Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan. In the said petition, notice was
issued to the appellant herein. Having regard to the nature of dispute, the High Court deemed it
proper to explore the possibility of settlement in the first instance. Thus, by order dated December
17, 2015, the parties were referred to mediation. This effort bore fruits as the respondent and
appellant settled the matter.
4. The appellant agreed to come back to USA and join the company of the respondent along with
Pranav. Consent terms were recorded and on the basis thereof, the High Court disposed of
the Habeas Corpus Petition vide order dated December 17, 2015 incorporating those terms of
settlement in its order and directing the parties to abide by the same. These consent terms are as
under:

(1) Both the parties will withdraw their respective cases within 4 months from today.

(2) Mr. Naveen Sharma will find out 3-4 flats for choice of Smt. Meenal and Smt. Meenal
will then go to U.S.A. to select one of them. This process should complete within 18
months.

(3) In the meantime Mr. Naveen Sharma will come to India to meet Mrs. Meenal and
Pranav at least for 3 time. Similarly Mrs. Meenal will go to U.S.A. along with her
son under the security with condition that Mr. Naveen will arrange all their expenses
including travelling expenses and will undertake that if both of them desire to return
India then Mr. Naveen will arrange their safe return to India.

page no. | 58 |

Meenal Bhargava Versus Naveen Sharma

(4) The flat which is going to purchase by Mr. Naveen Sharma should be in joint name of
both party. None of the party will entitle to sale this flat or its any part independently.
Mr. Naveen Sharma will arrange collateral security against loan and in no case the flat
should be taken from ownership and possession of Mrs. Meenal Sharma. In case any
mis-happening the flat will remain in ownership of Mrs. Meenal Sharma.

(5) Mr. Naveen, Mrs. Meenal and Pranav will live jointly at U.S.A. after purchase of flat.
None of the family member of both parties will disturb and interfere in their lives.

5. For certain reasons, the laudable settlement, hoping to achieve win-win situation, did not
turn into reality. As per the respondent, it is the appellant who committed breach of the said
settlement and also violated the directions contained in the order of the High Court to comply
with these terms. As she failed to adhere to the settlement and did not comply with the directions
of the High Court in this behalf, the respondent herein filed Civil Contempt Petition in the
High Court seeking execution of the consent terms and punishment to the appellant under the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant also, thereafter,
filed application in the High Court seeking recall of the consent order dated December 17, 2015.
The High Court has, by impugned judgment dated January 9, 2018, found the appellant to be
in contempt and award maximum punishment of six months civil imprisonment under Section
12(1) read with Section 12(3) of the Act with direction to the appellant to surrender within four
weeks. The High Court has also dismissed the application preferred by the appellant for recall
of order dated December 17, 2015. However, it has not accepted the request of the respondent
to give him the custody of Pranav pursuant to the Canadian Courts order dated April 16, 2015
and, instead, permitted the respondent to seek execution of the said order.

6. The appellant has challenged the aforesaid order against the findings of the High Court holding
her to be in contempt of its order and awarding the said punishment. The respondent feels
aggrieved by that part of the order whereby the High Court has refused to grant him the custody
of Pranav and showed him the route of execution. This, in nutshell, is the scope of two appeals
before this Court.

7. As noted above, Pranav was born in Baltimore, USA on August 22, 2009. He is having US
citizenship. Both the parties, after their marriage, have resided in America or Canada. They have
also became Permanent Residents of Canada as well as America. From the date of his birth in
August, 2009, Pranav remained with their parents, initially in America and thereafter in Canada
till July 26, 2013, when the appellant went away with him to Buffalo, New York and thereafter
came to India on August 4, 2013. Pranav stayed with his father, along with her mother, for four
years and since then he is living with her mother to the exclusion of the respondent. He was 4
years of age when he was brought to India by the appellant and is in India now for more than 4½
years. Another pertinent fact which is to be noted is that the respondent has got orders from the
Canadian Court giving custody of Pranav to him and has directed the appellant herein to return
the child back to Canada.

8. In the aforesaid background, the respondent had filed petition for Habeas Corpus. However,
the said petition was not heard on merits inasmuch as parties were relegated to mediation
where they settled the matter leading to disposal of the Habeas Corpus petition vide order
dated December 17, 2015 on the consent terms which were made part of the order with specific
directions to both the parties to adhere to those conditions. We have already noted the consent

page no. | 59 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

terms as per which the parties had to withdraw their respective cases against each other within
4 months from the date of the order of the High Court. The respondent was obligated to find
out 3-4 flats for choice of the appellant. After having chosen these flats, he was to show the same
to the appellant. The appellant, at that stage, was supposed to go to USA to select one of the said
flats. On this selection, she was to join the respondent with Pranav, thereby achieving again the
matrimonial alliance and Pranav having benefit of the company of both his parents. This entire
process was to be completed within 18 months. During the aforesaid period of 18 months which
was given to the respondent to find out flats in USA, the respondent was permitted to come to
India, at least three times, to meet the appellant and Pranav. Likewise, the appellant and Pranav
were also supposed to go to USA under security and for such visits, it was the responsibility of
the respondent to arrange all their expenses including travelling expenses. During such visits,
they were entitled to remain in USA as per their choice and as and when they desired to return
to India, the respondent had to arrange their safe return to India.
9. Three main obligations, as per the consent terms, were foisted upon the respondent, viz.:
(i) To find 3-4 flats in USA to enable the appellant to select one of them. The chosen flat was

to become abode of the family.
(ii) To withdraw the cases filed against the appellant. This included complaint filed with Police

and also take steps to ensure that warrants/red-corner notice issued by the FBI/Interpol
also stands withdrawn. This was necessary for smooth entry of the appellant in USA.
(iii) After the selection of the flat by the appellant, the respondent was obligated to purchase
the said flat in joint names.
10. Likewise, the appellant was bound to carry out the following tasks as per the aforesaid statements:
(i) To withdraw all the cases filed by her against the respondent.
(ii) After earmarking of 3-4 flats by the respondent, to go to USA to select one of them.
(iii) On selecting the flat and purchase thereof by the respondent in joint names of the
appellant and respondent, she was to go to USA along with Pranav and stay there with the
respondent.
11. For certain reasons, the parties fell apart and the settlement terms could not be fructified leading
to the unfortunate situation. As per the respondent, he had played his part by complying with
the said terms inasmuch as he withdrew the illinois police complaint, warrants/red-corner
notice issued by FBI/Interpol on February 12, 2016. He also visited India three times i.e. in
August, 2016, December, 2016 and August, 2017. During these visits, the respondent had shown
to the appellant various flats selected online by him with request to the appellant to make her
choice. However, on his third visit in August, 2017, the appellant did not allow Pranav to meet
the respondent as a result of which police complaint was filed with the SHO, Ajmer on August
26, 2017. The respondent also sent air tickets to the appellant on August 31, 2017 for travel on
September 3, 2017 to enable her and Pranav to visit USA. The respondent further claims that he
had also planned a trip to Disney World, Florida for Pranav along with the appellant. According
to the respondent, in spite of all the efforts made by the respondent, it is the appellant who
backed out and resiled from the settlement as she failed to perform her role.

page no. | 60 |

Meenal Bhargava Versus Naveen Sharma

12. The appellant, on the other hand, blames the respondent which led to the aforesaid failure. Her
accusation is that after the Habeas Corpus Petition was disposed of vide order dated December
17, 2015, she filed following three petitions on April 12, 2016 seeking to withdraw the following
cases filed by her:
(i) Custody Petition filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.
(ii) Maintenance case filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.
(iii) Divorce case filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.

13. It is further claimed by the appellant that even the criminal proceedings launched by her under
Section 498-A IPC etc. were quashed by the High Court on a petition filed by the respondent
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which happened because
of her no objection as per the settlement. Pointing the finger at the respondent, her imputation
is that he did not withdraw the custody case filed by him in the Canadian Court and/or sought
vacation/rescinding of order dated April 16, 2015 by which custody of Pranav was ordered in
favour of the respondent. She also alleges that the respondent failed to send a list of flats to
her within the stipulated 18 months time which was mentioned in the consent terms. Thus,
according to the appellant, it is the respondent who has not fulfilled his obligations under the
settlement. In fact, she even filed miscellaneous application in the petition that was filed by the
respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and was allowed by the High Court on April 12, 2017,
seeking recall of the said order on the ground that it was the respondent who had committed
breach of the settlement. High Court, however, rejected the said application vide order dated
May 9, 2017 on the ground that the said order had been passed after issuance of notice to the
appellant.

14. With this kind of impasse, the respondent filed a miscellaneous application in the Habeas Corpus
Petition seeking revival thereof on the ground that the appellant had breached the consent terms.
This application was, however, not accepted by the High Court on the ground that if there was
any breach or disobedience on the part of the appellant herein, there was an alternative remedy
available to the respondent to file contempt petition. This application was, thus, dismissed as
withdrawn by order dated October 5, 2017 with liberty to the respondent to file the contempt
petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed the contempt petition on November 7, 2017 which has
culminated in the impugned judgment dated January 9, 2018.

15. We may mention at this stage that when the notice of the contempt petition was served upon the
appellant, she filed reply thereto stating that she had taken requisite steps under the settlement
and it is the respondent who failed to get orders dated April 16, 2015 passed by Canadian Court
nullified thereby disabling her to go to America inasmuch as she could be arrested immediately
on landing in USA/Canada in view of the aforesaid order. She also alleged that list of flats was
not sent to her. Moreover, conduct of the respondent, post-settlement, was not good. She had
also filed additional reply dated December 11, 2017 contending (i) pursuant to High Court
orders, she had gone to Delhi hotel to meet respondent and his mother but she was publicly
humiliated there, (ii) she had found that the respondent had been fired by his employer IBM for
taking bribes and he had not been truthful to the Government also and (iii) respondent had not
paid a single penny as maintenance. This was followed by application dated December 19, 2017
by the appellant seeking recall of order dated December 17, 2015.

page no. | 61 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

16. The aforesaid stand of the appellant has been taken note of with a specific purpose, namely, it
is the contention of Mrs. Anjana Prakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,
that the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, not even discussed and dealt with the
submissions of the appellant that she had not committed any breach of the order or consent
terms and on the contrary, it is the respondent who failed to fulfil his obligations thereunder.
She submitted that from the reading of the impugned order, it can be discerned that the High
Court Bench kept on insisting the appellant to join the company of the respondent along with
Pranav and on her refusal to do so, the High Court has taken the view that appellant has shown
strong defiance to the orders of the Court. In the process, the High Court has not even cared
to examine who was at fault insofar as adherence to the consent order is concerned. She also
submitted that the High Court took into consideration another extraneous factor. It has noted in
the impugned judgment that statement was given in the Court by the father of the appellant that
the application for recall of order dated May 9, 2017 passed in petition filed by the respondent
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was moved by the counsel for the appellant without her instructions.
That, however, was found to be false assertion inasmuch as the High Court called for the record
of that case and found that each page of the application was signed by the appellant and on
realising this, it was conceded that lawyer was instructed to make such an application. It was
contended by the learned senior counsel that even if this was correct, it has no bearing insofar
as the contempt case is concerned.

17. Mr. Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, put entire blame
upon the appellant who, according to him, took summersault with intention to commit breach
of settlement terms as there was change of heart and she decided not to join the company of
the husband. He took pains to demonstrate that respondent had took all the necessary steps in
terms of the settlement. He still wanted the appellant to resume matrimonial alliance for the
sake of saving the family ties and also to enable Pranav be in the company of both the parents.

18. We have duly considered the submissions of counsel for both the parties. As noted in detail above,
both the parties are blaming each other for the failure of settlement terms. In this backdrop,
we have gone through the impugned order passed by the High Court. In the entire judgment,
the High Court has not adverted to the important aspect that needed attention in such a case,
namely, whether it was the appellant who was responsible for not adhering to the terms of the
consent order and thereby violated the directions issued by the High Court in in its orders dated
May 09, 2017. After all, the respondent had filed the contempt petition attributing breach of the
directions on the part of the appellant. In reply, the appellant had taken up the stand that she
was not responsible for the happenings and squarely blamed the respondent therefor. The High
Court has not discussed these aspects. On the contrary, the approach of the High Court was
to insist the appellant to adhere to the settlement terms even at that stage and on her refusing
to do so it arrived at a finding that she had committed the contempt of the courts order as the
aforesaid conduct was found to be abhorrent. It is, thus, the stubborn attitude shown by the
appellant during the hearing of the contempt petition which has weighed by the High Court.
That, according to us, was not the correct approach for punishing the appellant for contempt
of court. The contempt petition was filed by the respondent alleging that the appellant had not
fulfilled her obligations under the consent terms and the directions given by the High court
in this behalf. It was, thus, necessary for the High Court to discuss and consider, in the first
instance, as to whether these allegations of the respondent were correct.

page no. | 62 |

Meenal Bhargava Versus Naveen Sharma

19. There is another way of looking into the matter. The consent terms on which the parties settled
the matter contained an important part of agreement, namely, both the parties decided to live
together again. This happened in the proceedings which essentially related to the custody of
child. No doubt, when the parties agreed to resume the matrimonial relations and decided
to live again as husband and wife, the problem of custody of Pranav got automatically solved
thereby as it brought about an ideal situation where Pranav could have the company of his both
the parents. Unfortunately, this did not materialise. In a case like this whether the High Court
could force the appellant to join the company of the respondent and live with him, if he had
decided for certain reasons not to do so? Even when a decree of conjugal rights is filed by a
competent court of law in favour of one of the spouses, such a decree cannot be executed and the
other spouse who is directed to resume the conjugal relations, cannot be forced to do so. It is a
different matter that for not obeying such a decree, other consequence follow including right to
the decree holder to seek divorce. When that is the position even in respect of a decree passed by
competent court of law forcing the appellant to join the company of the respondent and on her
failing to do so punishing her in committing contempt of the courts order, that too by awarding
maximum civil imprisonment in law cannot be countenanced. In a matter like this, the focus
of the High Court should have been on the custody of the child, which was a subject matter of
the Habeas Corpus petition. However, as far as that aspect is concerned, the High Court simply
stated that it would be open to the respondent to execute the order of the Canadian Court dated
April 16, 2015. Here again the High Court has fallen into error. In fact, in a matter like this, the
High Court should have restored the Habeas Corpus Petition and decided the same on merits.
However, when application for this purpose was filed by the respondent, instead of doing so the
High Court passed the orders dated October 05, 2017 giving liberty to the respondent to file the
contempt petition.

20. Having regard to our aforesaid discussion, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant and set aside
the order of the High court whereby the appellant is punished for contempt. It would be open
to the respondent to press the contempt petition before the High Court and if he so choses the
High Court shall decide the contempt petition in the light of the aforesaid observations made
by this Court, namely, to first find out as to whether the appellant is correct in her submissions
that it is the respondent who did not take necessary steps to ensure that the appellant joins
the company of the respondents along with Pranav in USA. We also allow the appeal of the
respondent partly by setting aside the direction of the High Court permitting the respondent
to file the execution petition. Instead with the consent of both the parties, order dated October
05, 2017 passed in Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent in Habeas Corpus petition
is set aside and her Habeas Corpus petition is revived which shall be dealt with by the High
Court on merits in order to decide as to whether custody of Pranav is to be handed over to the
respondent. Before us, both the parties have advanced arguments on this aspect whereas the
appellant submitted that the welfare of Pranav lies in continuing his custody with his mother.
The respondent had made a fervent plea to claim the custody on the basis of the order of the
Canadian Court. However, we are deliberately not dealing with this aspect as this aspect is the
subject matter of Habeas Corpus Petition pending in the High Court and it is the High Court
which has to deal with and decide this question, in the first instance.

21. Both the aforesaid appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms, without any orders as to costs.

page no. | 63 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

22. Before we part with, we are constrained to make few comments about the conduct of the parties
who are not fully acknowledging the truth and reality of the situation. It is either the appellant
or the respondent or may be, to some extent, both of them, who are to be blamed for the egoist
approach. No doubt, on an earlier occasion, some differences arose between them which led to
strained relations and the appellant even came back to India. Legal battles of all kinds started with
both the parties filing multiple proceedings against each other. In these dark clouds enveloping
the relationship between the parties, a silver lining emerged in the form of mediation. As both
the parties acted with wisdom and maturity, mediation exercise was successful. Both the parties
not only buried their acrimony against each other but decided to have a new beginning. The
magic of mediation worked at that moment. The consent terms which were recorded in the
settlement arrived at during mediation proceedings brought about the resolution which could
truly be levelled as win-win situation. The accord was aimed at reuniting the two spouses with
the aim of bringing happiness in the matrimonial relationship. More importantly, paramount
interest of Pranav as a child was acknowledged by the parties as any child, particularly at this
age, needs the company of both the parents for him/her to bloom and for ideal bringing up. In
fact, as is clear from the events noted above, both the parties even took initial steps to make
this settlement a success. However, before it could be seen as happy ending and parties could
reach that end of the road where they could find their final destination as envisaged in the
settlement, they encountered a road block. Whether it happened due to the fault of the appellant
or that of respondent, we are not commenting about the same. Unfortunate part is that instead
of acknowledging the truth, parties are grumbling continuously and complaining against each
other. This accusation, castigation, chargeability and dilation, depicting deviation from rectitude
is a mindless exercise and, in the process, true welfare of Pranav is sought to be sacrificed. We
are compelled to express these sentiments because of the reason that things have still not gone
beyond repair. Had the parties shown positive and cooperative attitude (which, we are sure,
they had demonstrated during mediation talks) they could still achieve an amiable resolution,
inasmuch as it is even now possible to work out the terms of the compromise that was entered
into between them. In fact, the respondent had expressed his willingness to go an extra-mile to
save the settlement and the matrimonial home. However, the appellant stood firm in her attitude
as she kept on saying that she could no longer repose confidence and trust in the respondent.
She has a grudge that respondent lured her into the settlement with selfish motive to take away
the custody of Pranav with no love towards her and his moves lack bona fides. The respondent,
on the other hand, maintained the position that appellant was resorting to falsehood because of
her selfish motives which were kept higher in priority, even at the cost of family life. However,
we may re-emphasise that all is not lost and situation can still be brought under control if there
is a dispassionate and objective thinking by both the parties, keeping aside their ego. Life has
problems. Parties have to understand those problems and to reflect on the reasons why these
problems have arisen leading to such kind of disputes. Both the parties have also to reflect on
the future and to make up their mind on that basis as to whether it would be in their interest, as
well as in the interest of Pranav to bury the hatched and have a new beginning. We say no more.
qqq

page no. | 64 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

Supreme Court of India
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, CJI, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar

and Hon’ble Mr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud
Mrs. Kanika Goel …..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Delhi ....Respondent(s)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 635-640 of 2018

Decided on : 20th July, 2018

Writ petition filed by Respondent No. 2 for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for production of
his minor daughter M (assumed name), who was about 3 years of age at the time of filing
of the writ petition and for a direction for return of M to the jurisdiction of the competent
Court in the United States of America in compliance with the order dated 13th January,
2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA, came to be allowed.

Appellant filed a petition under section 13(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking
dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty along with an application under section
26 of same act.

The child is a habitual resident of US and Illinois is the home state of child pursuant to the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act, the high court committed an error
look into the best interest of child on the basis of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act,
2015. Application filed by the Appellant Under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
restraining Respondent No. 2 from removing the minor child from the jurisdiction of that
Court until further orders.

Appellant, being the mother of the minor child M, has approached this Court by way of
Special Leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Custody of the minor girl child M would remain with the Appellant until she attains the
age of majority or the Court of competent jurisdiction, trying the issue of custody of the
minor child, orders to the contrary, with visitation and access rights to the biological father
whenever he would visit India.

Further directed that the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 must ensure early disposal of
the proceedings for grant of custody of the minor girl child to the Appellant, instituted and
pending before the Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. All contentions available to
the parties in that regard will have to be answered by the Family Court on its own merits
and in accordance with law. Present court further set aside the impugned judgment and
orders of the High Court and dispose of the writ petition with some terms and conditions.

page no. | 65 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

JUDGMENTS

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar :—
1. These appeals take exception to the judgment and orders passed by the High Court of Delhi

at New Delhi dated 16 th November, 2017, 1st December, 2017 and 6th December, 2017, in
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.374 of 2017 and Criminal M.A. whereby the writ petition filed by
respondent No.2 for issuing a writ of habeas corpus for production of his minor daughter M
(assumed name), who was about 3 years of age at the time of filing of the writ petition and for
a direction for return of M to the jurisdiction of the competent Court in the United States of
America in compliance with the order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, USA, came to be allowed. The Delhi High Court directed the appellant to
comply with the directions as M was in her custody, the appellant being M’s mother.
2. The respondent No.2 asserted that he was born in India but presently is a citizen of USA since
2005. He is working as the CEO of a Company called ‘Get Set Learning’. The appellant is his wife
and mother of the minor child M. She is a US Permanent Resident and a “Green Card” holder
and has also applied for US citizenship on 2nd December, 2016. At the relevant time, she was
a certified teacher in the State of Illinois and was employed as a Special Education Classroom
Assistant in Chicago Public Schools. The respondent No.2 and the appellant got married on
31st December, 2010 as per Sikh rites, i.e. Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu Vedic rites in
NewDelhi. It was clearly understood between both the parties that the appellant, after marriage,
would reside with respondent No.2 in the USA. Eventually, the appellant travelled to the USA on
a Fiance Visa and got married to respondent No.2 again on 19th March, 2011 at Cook County
Court in Chicago, Illinois. Before the marriage, the parties entered into a Pre-Nuptial Agreement
dated 20th October, 2010 enforceable in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, USA.
The appellant then took employment as a teacher in Chicago Public School and also secured a
US Permanent Citizen Green Card. The appellant became pregnant and gave birth to M on 15
th February, 2014 in USA. M is thus a natural born US citizen and was domiciled in the State
of Illinois, USA from her birth till she was clandestinely removed by the appellant in December
2016 under the guise of undertaking a short trip to New Delhi to meet the appellant’s parents.
3. The appellant was scheduled to return to Chicago on 7 th January, 2017 but she went missing
and filed a petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the 1955
Act”) being H.M.A. Case No.27 of 2017 seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty,
along with an application under Section 26 of the 1955 Act on 7 th January, 2017 seeking a
restraint order against respondent No.2 from taking M away from the jurisdiction of Indian
Courts. A notice was issued thereon to respondent No.2, made returnable on 11th January, 2017.
4. The respondent No.2, however, filed an emergency petition for temporary sole allocation of
parental responsibilities and parenting time in his favour or in the alternative, an emergency
order of protection for possession of his minor daughter M, before the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois on 9th January, 2017. A notice of emergency motion was served on the appellant
by e-mail, informing her of the proposed hearing on 13th January, 2017.
5. In the meantime, on 11th January, 2017 the Family Court at New Delhi issued a fresh notice to
respondent No.2 and passed an ex-parte order on the application filed by the appellant under
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, restraining respondent No.2 from removing the
minor child from the jurisdiction of that Court until further orders.

page no. | 66 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

6. The respondent No.2 on the other hand, caused to file a missing person complaint on 13 th
January, 2017 before the SHO, Vasant Kunj (South), P.S. New Delhi, which was acknowledged
by the Police Station on 14 th January, 2017. Besides the said complaint, respondent No.2 moved
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, USA on 13 th January, 2017 when an ex-parte order
was passed for interim sole custody of the minor child. The said order reads thus:

“1) The child M born on 15.02.2014, in Chicago, Illinois and having resided in Chicago
solely for her entire life (specifically at 360 East Randolph Street, Chicago, IL 60601) is
also a US citizen.

2) The child is a habitual resident of the state of Illinois, United States of America having
never resided anywhere else. Illinois is the home state of the child pursuant to the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act.

3) Karan Goel is the natural father of the minor child and granted interim sole custody of
the minor child. Child is to be immediately returned to the residence located in Cook
County, Illinois, USA by Respondent.

4) The Cook County, Illinois Court having personal and subject matter jurisdiction over
the parties and matter.

5) All further issues regarding visitation, child support are reserved until further Order of
Court.”

7. The appellant did not comply with the order of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
therefore, respondent No.2 filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court on 1 st February,
2017, to issue a writ of habeas corpus and direct the appellant to produce the minor child M and
cause her return to the jurisdiction of the Court in the United States, in compliance with the
order dated 13th January, 2017 passed by the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to enable
the minor child to go back to United States and if the appellant failed to do so within a fixed
time period, to direct the appellant to immediately hand over the custody of the minor child to
respondent No.2 (writ petitioner) to enable him to take the minor child to the jurisdiction of the
US Court.

8. This writ petition was contested by the appellant. The High Court issued interim orders
including regarding giving access of the minor child to respondent No.2 in the presence ofthe
appellant and her parents. Finally, all the contentious issues between the parties were answered
by the High Court by a speaking judgment and order dated 16 th November, 2017, in favour of
respondent No.2, after recording a finding that the paramount interest of the minor child was to
return to USA, so that she could be in her natural environment. To facilitate the parties to have
a working arrangement and to minimize the inconvenience, the Division Bench of the High
Court issued directions in the following terms:

“139. In the light of the aforesaid, we are more than convinced that respondent No.2 should,
in the best interest of the minor child M, return to USA along with the child, so that she
can be in her natural environment; receive the love, care and attention of her father as
well – apart from her grandparents, resume her school and be with her teachers and
peers. Pertinently, respondent No.2 is able-bodied, educated, accustomed to living in
Chicago, USA, was gainfully employed and had an income before she came to India
in December 2016 and, thus, she should not have any difficulty in finding her feet in

page no. | 67 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

USA. She knows the systems prevalent in that country, and adjustment for her in that
environment would certainly not be an issue. Accordingly, we direct respondent no.2
to return to USA with the minor child M. However, this direction is conditional on the
conditions laid down hereinafter.

140. Respondent No.2 has raised certain issues which need to be addressed, so that when
she returns to USA, she andthe minor child do not find themselves to be in a hostile
or disadvantageous environment. There can be no doubt that the return of respondent
No.2 with the minor child should be at the expense of the petitioner; their initial stay
in Chicago, USA, should also be entirely funded and taken care of by the petitioner by
providing a separate furnished accommodation (with all basic amenities & facilities
such as water, electricity, internet connection, etc.) for the two of them in the vicinity
of the matrimonial home of the parties, wherein they have lived till December 2016.
Thus, it should be the obligation of the petitioner to provide reasonable accommodation
sufficient to cater to the needs of respondent No.2 and the minor child. Since respondent
No.2 came to India in December 2016 and would, therefore, not have retained her job,
the petitioner should also meet all the expenses of respondent No.2 and the minor child,
including the expenses towards their food, clothing and shelter, at least for the initial
period of six months, or till such time as respondent No.2 finds a suitable job for herself.
Even after respondent No.2 were to find a job, it should be the responsibility of the
petitioner to meet the expenses of the minor daughter M, including the expenses towards
her schooling, other extra-curricular activities, transportation, Attendant/ Nanny and
the like, which even earlier were being borne by the petitioner. The petitioner should also
arrange a vehicle, so that respondent No.2 is able to move around to attend to her chores
and responsibilities.

141. Considering that the petitioner had initiated proceedings in USA and the respondent
No.2 has been asked to appear before the Court to defend those proceedings, the petitioner
should also meet the legal expenses that respondent No.2 may incur, till the time she is
not able to find a suitable job for herself. However, if respondent no.2 is entitled to legal
aid/assurance from the State, to the extent the legal aid is provided to her, the legal
expenses may not be borne by the petitioner.

142. The petitioner should also undertake that after the return of the minor child M with
respondent No.2 to USA, the custody of M shall remain with respondent No.2 and that
he shall not take the minor child out of the said custody by use of force. He should also
undertake that after respondent No.2 lands in Chicago, USA, the visitation and custody
rights qua the parties, as may be determined by the competent Court in USA, shall be
honoured.

143. Respondent No.2 has also expressed apprehension that the petitioner would seek to
enforce the terms of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement entered into between the parties. Since
the said agreement has been entered into in India, its validity has to be tested as per the
Indian law. Respondent No.2 has already initiated suit for declaration and permanent
injunction to challenge the said Pre-Nuptial Agreement dated 22.10.2010. We have
perused the said agreement and we are of the view the petitioner should not be permitted
to enforce the terms of this agreement in USA, at least till the said suit preferred by the
respondent No.2 is decided. The petitioner should, therefore, give an undertaking to

page no. | 68 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

this Court, not to rely upon or enforce the said Pre-Nuptial Agreement to the detriment
of respondent No.2 in any proceedings either in USA, or in India. The undertaking
shall remain in force till the decision in the suit for declaration and injunction filed by
respondent No.2 challenging validity of the Pre-Nuptial Agreement. This undertaking
shall, however, not come in the way of the petitioner while defending the said suit of the
respondent No.2.

144. With the aforesaid arrangements and directions, in our view, respondent No.2 can
possibly have no objection to return to USA with M. The comfort that we have sought
to provide to respondent No.2, as aforesaid, is to enable her to have a soft landing when
she reaches the shores of USA, so that the initial period of at least six months is taken
care of for her, during which period she could find her feet and live on her own, or under
an arrangement as may be determinedby the competent Courts in USA during this
period. At this stage, we are not inclined to direct that the custody of M be given to the
petitioner so that he takes her back to USA. M is a small child less than 4 years of age,
and that too, is a female child. Though she may be attached to the petitioner – her father,
she is bound to need her mother – respondent no.2 more. In our view, once M returns to
USA with her mother, i.e. respondent No.2, orders for custody or co- parenting should
be obtained by the parties from the competent Courts in USA. Moreover, it would be for
the Courts in USA to eventually rule on the aspect concerning the financial obligations
and responsibilities of the parties towards each other and towards the minor child M –
for upbringing the minor child – M independent of any directions issued by this Court
in this regard.

145. The petitioner is directed to file his affidavit of undertaking in terms of paras 140 to
144 above within ten days with advance copy of the respondents. The matter be listed
on 01.12.2017 for our perusal of the affidavit of undertaking, and for passing of final
orders.”

9. By this judgment and order passed by the High Court and the directions issued, as reproduced
hitherto, the substantive issues inter se the parties were answered against the appellant to the
extent indicated. In continuation of the aforementioned directions, a further order was passed
on 1 st December, 2017 by the High Court which reads thus:

“1. In terms of the directions contained in our judgment dated 16.11.2017, the petitioner
Karan Goel has filed the affidavit dated 20.11.2017. A perusal of the affidavit shows
that the petitioner has undertaken and consented to abide by all the conditions imposed
upon him, so that respondent no.2 could return to USA with the minor child.

2. Respondent no.2 has also filed a counter-affidavit to the said affidavit of the petitioner.
Respondent no.2 has raised the issue that the petitioner has not particularized the
amounts and facilities that the petitioner would provide in case respondent no.2 were to
return to USA with the minor child.

3. The petitioner is present in Court with his parents. The petitioner has tendered in Court
the details/particulars of the proposed financial aid in terms of our judgment. The said
details/ particulars read as follows:

page no. | 69 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

‘1. Upon Respondent No.2 giving a date/this Hon’ble Court fixing a date on which
she and minor child M will depart from Delhi for Chicago, Illinois, USA, the
Petitioner shall do the following at least 3 [three] days prior to their departure
date:-

(i) Book airline tickets on United Airlines with a non-stop flight from Delhi to
USA for minor child M and Respondent No.2;

(ii) Provide a hotel room at The Hyatt Regency (located ~7 minute walk from
minor child M’s preschool) for the first seven (7) days after landing in Chicago to
enable Respondent No.2 to sign leases for (a) accommodation and (b) a car; and

2. The Petitioner is/ was already paying [directly out of his salary] the following
amounts for minor child M and shall continue to do so in compliance of the
directions of this Hon’ble Court (all amounts in US Dollars = USD):-

(i) ~$2,100/month Preschool tuition at Bright Horizons Lakeshore East where she
was enrolled five days a week; and

(ii) ~$232/month for health insurance via Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois.

3. In addition to point 2 above, the Petitioner shall pay the following amounts (all
amounts in US Dollars =USD) for a total of $4,200/month to Respondent No.2 in
advance for the first month [by transferring the said amount into a joint account
prior to Respondent No.2 and minor child M taking off from Delhi] and thereafter
by the 28th of every month for the subsequent month [for the initial period of six
months]:-

(i) $2,600/month as rent for a fully furnished apartment with high-speed internet,
air conditioning and heating, water, garbage disposal, and parking for a vehicle;

(ii) $400/month for Respondent No. 2’s health insurance;

(iii) $1,000/month in expenses for food, shelter, and clothing for minor child M
and Respondent No. 2; and

(iv) $200/month for a car lease and car insurance.

4. In case legal aid / assurance is not available / provided to Respondent No.2, the
Petitioner shall give an additional amount of $1,500/ month to Respondent No.2
for her legal expenses for the first six months after her and minor child M’s return
to Chicago, Illinois, USA’.

4. We have also separately recorded the statement of petitioner on oath, wherein he has
undertaken to this Court to abide by the offer made by him in terms of our decision. He
has also undertaken that in case of any breach of the said stipulation, respondent no.2
may enforce the same before the competent Court in USA.

5. To ensure compliance of the aforesaid obligation, the petitioner has offered that he shall
deposit an amount US$ 25,000 in an escrow account, which shall be operated upon
orders of the competent Court in Cook County, Illinois, USA. The said account shall be
operatable at the instance of respondent no.2 in case of non compliance of any of the
condition and to the extent it becomes necessary, under the orders of the said Court.

page no. | 70 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

6. The petitioner seeks a short adjournment to produce the relevant documents in that
regard before this Court.

7. Since the petitioner and his parents are in India, and it is submitted that the petitioner
has not met his minor daughter since March 2017, it is agreed that the petitioner and
his parents shall be allowed to meet the minor child M today, tomorrow and day after
tomorrow at DLF Promenade Mall, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

8. Today’s meeting shall take place between 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., and on Saturday and
Sunday, the meeting shall take place from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. The petitioner has
desired that the meeting may take place exclusively.

9. Since respondent no.2 has apprehensions, the petitioner has offered to and has deposited
his American Passport with the Court Master. The Court Master shall seal the same in
Court and thereafter the same be handed over to the Deputy Registrar concerned to be
kept in safe custody. The same shall not be parted with unless so ordered by this Court.

10. The petitioner has assured that the child shall not be taken away unauthorisedly and
shall be duly returned to respondent no.2 at the end of the meeting on each date.

11. List on 06.12.2017 for further directions. On the next date, the child may be brought
to the Court so that the petitioner and his parents are able to meet the child in the
Children’s Room at the Mediation Centre between 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

12. Order dasti under the signatures of the Court Master.”

10. Again, on 6th December, 2017, another order was passed to formally dispose of the writ petition
finally in the following terms:

1. “Mr. Jauhar has tendered in Court the affidavit of undertaking sworn by the petitioner
along with three annexures, which are:

(i) A statement from Citibank, USA in respect of joint account held by the petitioner
and respondent No.2;

(ii) An affidavit of Molshree A., Sharma, ESQ., a partner at the law firm of Mandel,
Lipton, Roseborough & Sharma Ltd., based in Chicago; and

(iii) Documents to show deposit of US$25,000 in an escrow account operated by the
aforesaid law firm.

2. The petitioner has stated that he has already deposited US$25,000 into his attorney’s
escrow account. The affidavit of Molshree A., Sharma affirms that the said escrow
account may be operated by respondent No.2/ Kanika Goel in the event of failure of the
petitioner/ Karan Goel in meeting his obligations as per his undertaking given to this
Court.

3. We are satisfied with the aforesaid arrangement made by the petitioner to secure
the interests of respondent No.2 and the minor child in terms of our decision dated
16.11.2017.

4. In these circumstances, we now direct respondent No.2 to return to USA along with the
minor child M within two weeks from today, failing which the minor child M shall be
handed over to the petitioner, to be taken to USA.

page no. | 71 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

5. We may observe that learned counsel for respondent No.2 has sought more time on the
ground that respondent No.2 wishes to assail the decision dated 16.11.2017 and that
the Supreme Court shall be closed for Winter Vacation in later part of December, 2017
and early part of January, 2018. However, we are not inclined to grant any further
time for the reason that it is imperative for respondent No.2 to return to USA on or
before 23.12.2017, and if she does not so return, her return may not be permitted by the
Immigration Department of USA without further compliance being made by her. We
cannot permit a situation to arise where respondent No.2 is able to defeat the direction
issued by this Court on account of her own acts & omissions.

6. The passport of the petitioner deposited in this Court is directed to be returned forthwith.
The said passport be returned to Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, larned counsel for the petitioner.
The said passport shall be retained by Mr. Jauhar so as to enable the petitioner and his
parents to meet the child M, while they are in New Delhi, India. Mr. Jauhar shall return
the passport to the petitioner only at the time when the petitioner has to return to USA,
after ensuring that the custody of the child is with respondent No.2.

7. The meeting between the petitioner and his parents, on the one hand, and the child, on
the other hand, shall be undertaken as per the arrangement worked out by us earlier,
i.e. two hours every working day, and three hours at the weekends, as mutually agreed
between the parties.

8. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and orders, the appellant, being the mother of the

minor child M, has approached this Court by way of Special Leave under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India. This Court issued notice on 15th December, 2017, when it passed the
following interim order:

“O R D E R

Issue notice.

As Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mr. R.S. Suri, learned senior counsel along with Mr.
Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel has entered appearance for the respondent No.2, no further
notice need be issued.

Counter affidavit be filed within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within a week
therefrom.

Let the matter be listed on 24th January, 2018.

As an interim measure, it is directed that the arrangements made by the High Court for
the visitation rights shall remain in force. The petitioner-wife shall not create any kind of
impediment in the meeting of the father with the child.

In the course of hearing, we have also been apprised by Dr. Singhvi that the Green Card issued
in favour of the petitioner-wife is going to expire on 22nd December, 2017.

Be that as it may, If, eventually, the petitioner loses in this proceeding and the respondent No.2
succeeds, the expiration of the Green Card cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the child
to the father. Needless to say, if the petitioner wife intends to go to United States of America

page no. | 72 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

and gets the Green Card renewed, it is open for her to do so. We may also record that the
husband has acceded to, as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, that he shall
not implicate her in any criminal proceeding.”
In continuation of the aforementioned interim arrangement, a further order was passed by this
Court on 24th January, 2018, which reads thus:

“O R D E R

Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel along with Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Dr. A.M.Singhvi, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Prabhjit
Jauhar, learned counsel for the respondents.

Though, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim arrangement made by the High
Court yet, regardbeing had to some grievances of both the parties, we intend to pass an order
clarifying the position.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is directed as follows:

(i) Whenever respondent No.2 is available in India, he shall intimate the petitioner by
E-mail and also forward a copy of the said E-mail to the counsel for the petitioner so
that she can make the child available for meeting with the father at Promenade Mall,
Vasant Kunj between 5.30 P.M. to 7.30 P.M. on weekdays and 11.00 A.M. to 2.00 P.M.
on holidays when the school is closed.

(ii) When the father will be meeting the child, they shall meet without any supervision.

(iii) When the father is not in India, there can be communication/interaction through Skype
at about 7.30 P.M.(Indian Standard Time) or any other mode on line.

(iv) The passport of the child, which is presently with the father, shall be handed over to the
mother for a period of one week so that she can take appropriate steps to complete certain
formalities for admission of the child in a school. This direction is without prejudice to the
final result in the special leave petition. The passport shall be returned by Ms.Malavika
Rajkotia, learned counsel for the petitioner to Mr.Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel for
the respondents.

Let the matter be listed on 19.02.2018 at 2.00 P.M. for final disposal.”
These are the relevant interim orders, which were to operate until the final disposal of the

appeals. On 18th May, 2018, a grievance was made before this Court about non-cooperation by
the appellant, which has been recorded as under:

“O R D E R

As mentioned in the first hour, the matter is taken up today. Be it noted, we have listed the
matter today as it relates to the conversation right of the father with the child.

In the course of hearing, Mr. Prabhjit Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
father submitted that the directions issued by this Court on earlier occasion relating to Skype
contact are not being complied with.

Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there has
been no deviation and in any case, the mother does not intend to anyway affect, indict or

page no. | 73 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

intervene in the right to converse by Skype. Ms. Rajkotia has assured this Court that her client
has not given any occasion to raise any grievance and if any grievance is nurtured by the
father, the same shall be duly addressed, so that the order of this Court is duly complied with.

We are sure, the parties shall behave like compliant litigants.”
The hearing was concluded and the interim arrangement as directed by this Court was to be

observed by the parties until the pronouncement of the final judgment.
12. The appellant, being the mother of the minor child M, has assailed the decision of the High Court

for having overlooked the rudimentary principles governing the issue of invoking jurisdiction to
issue a writ of habeas corpus in respect of a minor child who was in lawful custody of her mother.
According to the appellant, the High Court hascompletely glossed over or to put it differently,
misconstrued and misapplied the principles of paramount interest of the minor girl child of
tender age of about 4 years. Similarly, the High Court has glossed over the doctrine of choice and
dignity of the mother of a minor girl child keeping in mind the exposition in K.S. Puttaswamy
& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.1 The High Court has also failed to take into account that the
intimate contact of the minor child would be her mother who was her primary care giver and
more so, when she was at the relevant time in the company of her mother. The appellant, being
the mother, had a fundamental right to look after her minor daughter which cannot be whittled
down or trivialized on the considerations which found favour with the High Court. The welfare
and paramount interest of the minor girl child would certainly lean towards the mother, all
other things being equal. The role of the mother of a minor girl child cannot be reduced to an
appendage of the child and the mother cannot be forced to stay in an unfriendly environment 1
(2017) 10 SCC 1 where she had been victim of domestic violence inflicted on her. This would be
so when the mother was also a working woman whose career would be at stake in the event the
directions given by the High Court were to be complied with in letter and spirit. The High Court
ought to have adopted a child rights based approach but the reasons which weighed with the
High Court, clearly manifest that it was influenced by the values of pre-constitutional morality
standard. The approach of the High Court, of delineating an arrangement, which it noted as
the lowest prejudice option to the mother, has no place for deciding the issue of removing the
custody of a minor girl child of tender age from her mother and giving it to her father for
being taken away to her native country. The High Court has misunderstood and misapplied the
principle expounded in Nithya Anand Raghavan Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.,2 and Prateek
Gupta Vs. Shilpi Gupta & Ors.3 The High Court has completely overlooked the autonomy of
the appellant inasmuch as the directions given by the High 2 (2017) 8 SCC 454 3 (2018) 2 SCC
309Court would virtually subjugate all her rights and would compel her to stay in an unfriendly
environment at the cost of her career and dignity. The arrangement directed by the High Court
can, by no standard, be said to be a just and fair muchless collaborative arrangement to be
worked out between the parents, without compromising on the paramount interest and welfare
of the minor girl child. The High Court committed a manifest error in answering the issue of
best interest of the minor girl child, inter alia on the basis of the provisions of the Juvenile Justice
Act and disregarding the crucial fact that the minor girl child was presently staying with her
mother along with her extended family, which she would be completely deprived of if taken
away to a place within the jurisdiction of the US Court by respondent No.2 her father. It was
also contended that in the process of reasoning out the plea taken by the appellant regarding the
circumstances in which she fled from USA with the minor girl child due to domestic violence

page no. | 74 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

inflicted on her, the said issue has been trivialized. It is contended that as the marriage between
the appellant andrespondent No.2 was solemnized in New Delhi as per Anand Karaj ceremony
and Hindu Vedic rites, the fact that the appellant went to the United States to stay with her
husband, would make no difference to her status and nationality, much less have any bearing on
the issue of best interest of the minor girl child.
13. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 would submit that the High Court analysed all the
relevant aspects of the matter keeping in mind the legal principles expounded in the recent
decisions of this Court and recorded its satisfaction about the best interest of the minor girl child
coupled with the necessity of the minor girl child to be produced before the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, USA, which had intimate contact with the minor girl child, inasmuch as
the minor girl child was born and was domiciled within the jurisdiction of that Court before she
was clandestinely removed by the appellant to India. It is contended that since both the father
as well as the minor girl child are US citizens and the mother is a permanent resident of US
and domiciled in that country, only the Courts of that country will have jurisdiction to decide
the matrimonial issues between the parties, including custody of the minor girl child and her
guardianship. Further, at the tender age of about 3 years, the minor girl child had hardly spent
any time in India so as to suggest that she has gained consciousness in India and thus it would
be in the best interest of the child to be taken away to the US. It is contended by respondent
No.2 that the High Court has analysed all the relevant facts before recording the finding that
the welfare and best interest of the minor girl child would be served by returning to United
States. As that finding is based on tangible material on record as adverted to by the High Court,
this Court should be loath to overturn the same and, more so, when the High Court has issued
directions to balance the equities and also facilitate return of the minor child to be produced
before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The directions so issued are no different than the
directions given by this Court in Nithya Anand Raghavan’s case, (supra). It is contended by
respondent No.2 that thisCourt may primarily examine the directions issued by the High Court
and if necessary, issue further directions to safeguard the interest of the appellant, but in no
case should the plea taken by the appellant, that the minor girl child should not return to US,
be accepted. It is contended that the sole consideration in a proceeding such as this, must be to
ascertain the welfare of the minor girl child and not to adjudicate upon the rights of the father or
the mother. While doing so, the Court may take into account all such aspects to ascertain as to
whether any harm would be caused to the minor child or for that matter, has been caused in the
past during her stay in US. From the order passed by the US Court, it is evident that the custody
of the minor girl child with the appellant had become unlawful and for which reason, this Court
in exercise of its jurisdiction for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus, must direct the appellant to
give the custody of the minor girl child to her father. It is contended that the argument regarding
health or personal matters raised by the appellant are only arguments of causing prejudice and
should have no bearing for answering the matters in issue, particularly in the context of the
equitable directions passed by the High Court. The Court must keep in mind that the minor girl
child is presently staying in India without a valid Visa after her Visa obtained for travelling to
India expired. The respondent No.2 would submit that no interference with the directions issued
by the High Court is warranted in the fact situation of the present case.
14. We have heard Ms. Malavika Rajkotia, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.
Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

page no. | 75 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

15. We shall first advert to the analysis made by the High Court in respect of the contentious issues.
That can be discerned from paragraph 102 onwards of the impugned judgment. The High Court
was conscious of the fact that it must first examine the issue regarding the welfare and best
interest of the minor child. It noted that the minor girl child was about 3 years when the writ
petition for habeas corpus was preferred on 1st February, 2017. It then noted that the respondent
No.2 – father of the minor girl child had acquired citizenship of the USA in 2005 and holds an
American Passport. He is living in the USA since 1994 and is thus domiciled in the USA. He had
acquired a Bachelors’ degree in Economics and obtained MBA qualification from the University
of Chicago. He was an Education Software Entrepreneur. The appellant wife is the biological
mother of the minor child M, who has acquired permanent resident status of the USA i.e. Green
Card and had also applied for American citizenship on 2nd December, 2016. The respondent
No.2 and appellant were classmates during their schooling and revived their contacts in 2000.
Eventually, they decided to get married and thereafter reside in USA where the respondent
No.2 had his work place and home. The marriage was solemnized in New Delhi in India on 31st
October, 2010 as per Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu Vedic rites in the presence of the elders
of both the families. After the appellant arrived in USA, they performed civil marriage before
the competent Court in USA on 19 th March, 2011.

16. The High Court adverted to the accomplishment of the appellant in her education and occupation.
The High Court noted that the couple started their matrimonial life in the United States and lived
as a couple in that country. They made the United States their home and their entire married life,
except the duration during which they were on short visits to India, had been spent in the USA.
They gave birth to a girl child M in USA on 15th February, 2014 at North Western Memorial
Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA. The minor child M is a US citizen by birth and grew up there
until she was clandestinely removed by the appellant to India on 25 th December, 2016. The
minor child had, in fact, started attending pre-school in Chicago and had a full time schedule
at school from August, 2016. Thus, the mental development of M while she was in USA till the
end of 2016, had taken place to such an extent that she was very well aware and conscious of
her surroundings. She was perceiving and absorbing from her surroundings and communicated
not only with her parents, but also with her other relatives, her peers at the pre- school, her
instructors, teachers and other care givers. The American way of life and systems were already
in the process of being learnt and experienced by M when she came to India in December, 2016.
The environment which M was experiencing during her growth was the natural environment of
Chicago, USA. Both her parents were looking after her proper upbringing. The Court also noted
that the paternal grandparents of the minor child M were visiting and interacting with her.
The Court then adverted to the decisions in Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs. Harbax Singh Sandhu
and Anr.4, Aviral Mittal Vs. State5, Shilpa Aggarwal Vs. Aviral Mittal and Anr.6, Dr. V. Ravi
Chandran Vs. Union of India & Ors.7, and Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra), to opine that the
Court in the US seemed to be the most appropriate Court to decide the issue of custody of M,
considering that it had 4 (1984) 3 SCC 698 5 (2009) 112 DRJ 635 6 (2010) 1 SCC 591 7 (2010) 1
SCC 174 intimate contact with the parties and the child. It went on to observe that it was neither
inclined nor in a position to undertake a detailed enquiry into aspects of custody, visitation and
co-parenting of the minor child in the facts and circumstances of the case, considering all the
events unfolded in, circumstances developed in and evidences were located in the USA. After
having said this, it examined the compelling reasons disclosed by the appellant to dissuade the
Court from issuing directions for return of M to her native country and the environment where

page no. | 76 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

she was born and being brought up. That analysis has been done in paragraph 114 onwards. The
High Court considered the grievances of the appellant in paragraphs 114 to 117 in the following
words:

“114. The allegations of respondent no.2 against the petitioner and his mother are that the
petitioner’s mother follows a strict eco-friendly lifestyle and imposes the same on the
couple, which even caused chronic backache to the respondent since she was forced to
sleep on a hard eco- friendly mattress. She claim that all her day to day affairs were
influenced by the lifestyle of her mother in law, such as not using plastic products, non
stick cookware, personal care products etc. The respondent had no voice in the matter.
The petitioner took minimal interest in household affairs, while his mother interfered
in the lives of the partiesby tracking their schedules. The petitioner and his mother did
not respect the respondents privacy and the plan of the parties to bear a child were
disclosed to the petitioner’s mother in advance. She even imposed lifestyle changes upon
the respondent. The petitioner’s mother also did not permit the respondent to maintain
a secular household. She was not permitted to celebrate both Sikh and Hindu festivals
and the petitioner insisted that they celebrate only Sikh festivals.

Respondent no.2 states that she was diagnosed with a grave’s disease in October 2014.
The petitioner and his mother insisted that the respondent undergoes surgery rather
than taking medication, since medication would have made it difficult for her to conceive
in future. She claims that the petitioner even threatened her with divorce in case she
prioritised her own health at the cost of expanding their family. The respondent makes
several other allegations against the petitioner and his mother complaining of cruelty
and indifference on their part towards her.

115. The above allegations per se do not suggest any grave undesirable conduct or deviant
behavior on the part of the petitioner, or his mother qua the child M – even if they were
to be assumed to be true for the time being. The allegations even remotely, not such as
to suggest that the minor child M may be exposed to any adversity, harm, undesirable
influence, or danger if she were to be allowed to meet them or spend time with them in
USA. There is nothing to suggest that the petitioner – father of M, or her grandmother
would leave a bad and undesirable influence on M. These allegations are not such
as to persuade this Court not to send the child M back to her country of origin and
initial upbringing. On the contrary, the petitioner appears to be an educated person
who is gainfully managing his business, and the photographs on record show healthy
bonding between M and her father. He also appears to have actively participated in
the upbringing of M – if the averments made by him in his petition are to be believed.
In fact, respondent no.2 had also expressed her willingness to let M interact with the
petitioner and to allow him visitation rights, whichwould not have been the case if she
considered him to be a bad influence on, or a potential threat to her daughter. The fact
that the petitioner’s mother is a pediatrician, in fact, is a reassuring fact that M would be
taken good care of medically in her tender years. The photographs filed by the petitioner
along with the petition show M to be having a healthy and normal upbringing while
she was in USA. She is seen enjoying the love, care and company of her parents and
others – including children of her age. There is no reason why she should be allowed to
be uprooted from the environment in which she was naturally growing up, and to be

page no. | 77 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

retained in an environment where she would not have the love, care and attention of her
father and paternal grandparents, apart from her peers, teachers, school and other care
givers who were, till recently, with her.

116. From the allegations made by respondent No.2, it appears that she may have had issues of
living with and adjusting with the petitioner and his parents – particularly the mother-
in-law. However, there is absolutely nothing placed on record to even remotely suggest
that so far as the petitioner is concerned, his conduct qua M and his presence with M, or
for that matter, even the grandparents, could be said to be detrimental to or harmful for
M. It certainly cannot be said that if M were to be returned to her place of origin where
she spent the initial three years of her life – considering that those three years constitute
more than 3/4th of her entire existence on this planet till date, would be detrimental to
her interest in any manner whatsoever.

117. The parties started their married life in USA, and as clearly appears from their conduct,
their mutual commitment was to spend their married life and to raise their children in
USA. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the parties mutually ever agreed to or
intended to shift from their place of residence to a place in India, though respondent
no.2 may have unilaterally so desired. In such a situation, in our view, respondent No.2
cannot breach her maternal commitment without any valid justification and remain in
return to India with M – who is an American citizen and would, obviously, be attached
to her father and grandparents; her home; her Nanny; her teachers & instructors and
her peers and friends, all of whom are in USA.”

17. After having said this, the High Court considered the argument of the appellant that she was the
primary care giver qua M but disregarded the same by observing that that alone cannot be made
the basis to reject the prayer for return of the minor girl child to her native country, and more so,
when the minor girl child deserves love, affection and care of her father as well. The Court found
that nothing prevents the appellant from returning to the USA if she so desires. Further, the fact
that the minor girl child would make new friends and have new care givers and teachers in India
at a new school, cannot be the basis to deny her the love and affection of her biological father or
parenting of grandparents which was equally important for the grooming and upbringing of the
child. The Court then went on to notice that the expression “best interest of child” is wide in its
connotation and cannot be limited only to love and care of the primary care giver i.e. the mother.
Itthen adverted to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,
2015, while making it clear that it was conscious of the fact that the said Act may not strictly
apply to the case on hand for examining the issue of best interest of the child. In paragraphs 124
to 126 of the impugned judgment, it went on to observe thus:

“124. Thus, all decisions regarding the child should be based on primary consideration that
they are in the best interest of the child and to help the child to develop to full potential.
When involvement of one of the parents is not shown to be detrimental to the interest of
the child, it goes without saying that to develop full potential of the child, it is essential
that the child should receive the love, care and attention of both his/ her parents, and
not just one of them, who may have decided on the basis of his/ her differences with the
other parent, to re-locate in a different country. Development of full potential of the child
requires participation of both the parents. The child, who does not receive the love, care
and attention of both the parents, is bound to suffer from psychological and emotional

page no. | 78 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

trauma, particularly if the child is small and of tender age. The law also recognizes the
fact that the primary responsibility of care, nutrition and protection of the child falls
primarily on the biological family. The “biological family” certainly cannot mean only
one of the two parents, even if that parent happens to be the primary care giver.

125. The JJ Act encourages restoration of the child to be re- united with his family at the
earliest, and to be restored to the same socio-economic and cultural status that he was
in, before being removed from that environment, unless such restoration or repatriation
is not in his best interest. The present is not a case where respondent No.2 fled from USA
or decided to stay back in India on account of any such conduct of the petitioner which
could be said to have been detrimental to her own interest, or the interest of the minor
child M. The decision of respondent No.2 to stay back in India is entirely personal to
her, and her alone. It is not based on consideration of the best welfare of the minor child
M. In fact, the best interest of the child M has been sidelined by respondent no.2 while
deciding to stay back in India with M.

126. Pertinently, respondent No.2 in her statement in response to the missing person report
made by the petitioner on 14.01.2017 vide DD No.20B dated 14.01.2017 at PS – Vasant
Kunj (South), New Delhi, inter alia, stated that ‘the parties came to New Delhi, India
with their daughter M on 20.12.2016. She further stated that during this time, I realized
that I do not want to continue with his suppressed marriage and file for divorce and
custody petition against K G in the Hon’ble Court Sh. Arun Kumar Arya, Principle
Judge, Family Courts, Patiala House, New Delhi via HMA No.27/17……’. Thus, it
appears from the statement of respondent No.2 that the realization that she did not want
to continue in her marriage dawned upon her only when she came to India, and it is not
that when she left the shores of USA in December 2016, she left with a clear decision in
her mind that she would not return to USA for any specific and justifiable reason.”

18. Reference was then made to the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted
by the General Assembly of the United Nations dated 20 th November, 1989, which was ratified
by the Government of India on 11 thDecember, 1992, and the resolution by the Government
of India issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development vide Resolution No.6-15/98
C.W., dated 9 th February, 2004 framing the “National Charter for Children, 2003” and the
Court observed in paragraph 138 as follows:

“138. Thus, best welfare of the child, normally, would lie in living with both his/ her parents
in a happy, loving and caring environment, where the parents contribute to the upbringing of
the child in all spheres of life, and the child receives emotional, social, physical and material
support to name a few. In a vitiated marriage, unfortunately, there is bound to be impairment
of some of the inputs which are, ideally, essential for the best interest of the child. Then the
challenge posed before the Court would be to determine and arrive at an arrangement, which
offers the best possible solution in the facts and circumstances of a given case, to achieve the
best interest of the child.”

19. On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is noticed that the High Court has taken note of all
the relevant decisions including the latest three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Nithya
Anand Raghavan’s case, (supra), which has had occasion to exhaustively analyse the earlier
decisions on the subject matter under consideration. The exposition in the earlier decisions has

page no. | 79 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

been again restated and re-affirmed in the subsequent decision of this Court in Prateek Gupta
Vs. Shilpi Gupta & Ors., (supra). Let us, therefore, revisit these two decisions. In paragraph 40
of the Nithya Anand Raghavan’s case, (supra), this Court observed thus:

“40. The Court has noted that India is not yet a signatory to the Hague Convention of 1980
on “Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”. As regards the non- Convention
countries, the law is that the court in the country to which the child has been removed
must consider the question on merits bearing the welfare of the child as of paramount
importance and reckon the order of the foreign court as only a factor to be taken into
consideration, unless the court thinks it fit to exercise summary jurisdiction in the
interests of the child and its prompt return is for its welfare. In exercise of summary
jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied and of the opinion that the proceeding instituted
before it was in close proximity and filed promptly after the child was removed from his/
her native state and brought within its territorial jurisdiction, the child has not gained
roots here and further that it will be in the child’s welfare to return to his native state
because of the difference in language spoken or social customs and contacts to which he/
she has been accustomed or such other tangible reasons. In such a case the court need
not resort to an elaborate inquiry into the merits of the paramount welfare of the child
but leave that inquiry to the foreign court by directing return of the child.

Be it noted that in exceptional cases the court can still refuse to issue direction to return
the child to the native state and more particularly in spite of a pre-existing order of the
foreign court in that behalf, if it is satisfied that the child’s return may expose him to a
grave risk of harm. This means that the courts in India, within whose jurisdiction the
minor has been brought must “ordinarily” consider the question on merits, bearing in
mind the welfare of the child as of paramount importance whilst reckoning the pre-
existing order of the foreign court if any as only one of the factors and not get fixated
therewith. In either situation—be it a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry—the
welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. Thus, while examining the issue the
courts in India are free to decline the relief of return of the child brought within its
jurisdiction, if it is satisfied that the child is now settled in its new environment or if it
would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in
an intolerable position or if the child is quite mature and objects to its return. We are in
respectful agreement with the aforementioned exposition.”

(emphasis supplied)
Again in paragraph 42, the Court observed thus:

“42. The consistent view of this Court is that if the child has been brought within India, the
courts in India may conduct:

(a) summary inquiry; or (b) an elaborate inquiry on the question of custody. In the
case of a summary inquiry, the court may deem it fit to order return of the child to the
country from where he/she was removed unless such return is shown to be harmful to
the child. In other words, even in the matter of a summary inquiry, it is open to the court
to decline the relief of return of the child to the country from where he/she was removed
irrespective of a pre-existing order of return of the child by a foreign court. In an elaborate
inquiry, the court is obliged to examine the merits as to where the paramount interests

page no. | 80 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

and welfare of the child lay and reckon the fact of a pre-existing order of the foreign
court for return of the child as only one of the circumstances. In either case, the crucial
question to be considered by the court (in the country to which the child is removed) is
to answer the issue according to the child’s welfare. That has to be done bearing in mind
the totality of facts and circumstances of each case independently. Even on close scrutiny
of the several decisions pressed before us, we do not find any contra view in this behalf.
To put it differently, the principle of comity of courts cannot be given primacy or more
weightagefor deciding the matter of custody or for return of the child to the native State.”

(emphasis supplied)

It will be apposite to also advert to paragraphs 46 & 47 of the reported decision, which read thus:

“46. The High Court while dealing with the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
concerning a minor child, in a given case, may direct return of the child or decline to
change the custody of the child keeping in mind all the attending facts and circumstances
including the settled legal position referred to above. Once again, we may hasten to add
that the decision of the court, in each case, must depend on the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case brought before it whilst considering the welfare of the child which
is of paramount consideration. The order of the foreign court must yield to the welfare of
the child. Further, the remedy of writ of habeas corpus cannot be used for mere enforcement
of the directions given by the foreign court against a person within its jurisdiction and
convert that jurisdiction into that of an executing court. Indubitably, the writ petitioner
can take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible in law for enforcement
of the order passed by the foreign court or to resort to any other proceedings as may be
permissible in law before the Indian Court for the custody of the child, if so advised.

47. In a habeas corpus petition as aforesaid, the High Court must examine at the threshold
whether the minor is in lawful or unlawful custody of another person (private
respondent named in the writ petition). For considering that issue, in a case such
as the present one, it is enough to note that the private respondent was none other
than the natural guardian of the minor being her biological mother. Once that fact is
ascertained, it can be presumed that the custody of the minor with his/her mother is
lawful. In such a case, only in exceptionable situation, the custody of the minor (girl
child) may be ordered to be taken away from her mother for being given to any other
person including the husband (father of the child), in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Instead, the other parent can be asked to resort to a substantive prescribed remedy
for getting custody of the child.” (emphasis supplied)

Again in paragraph 50, the Court expounded as under:

“50. The High Court in such a situation may then examine whether the return of the minor
to his/her native state would be in the interests of the minor or would be harmful.

While doing so, the High Court would be well within its jurisdiction if satisfied, that
having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, it would be in the interests
and welfare of the minor child to decline return of the child to the country from where
he/she had been removed; then such an order must be passed without being fixated
with the factum of an order of the foreign court directing return of the child within

page no. | 81 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

the stipulated time, since the order of the foreign court must yield to the welfare of the
child. For answering this issue, there can be no straitjacket formulae or mathematical
exactitude. Nor can the fact that the other parent had already approached the foreign
court or was successful in getting an order from the foreign court for production of the
child, be a decisive factor. Similarly, the parent having custody of the minor has not
resorted to any substantive proceeding for custody of the child, cannot whittle down the
overarching principle of the best interests and welfare of the child to be considered by the
Court. That ought to be the paramount consideration.”

(emphasis supplied)
In paragraphs 67 and 69, the Court propounded thus:

“67. The facts in all the four cases primarily relied upon by Respondent 2, in our opinion,
necessitated the Court to issue direction to return the child to the native state. That does
not mean that in deserving cases the courts in India are denuded from declining the
relief to return the child to the native state merely because of a pre-existing order of the
foreign court of competent jurisdiction. That, however, will have to be considered on
case to case basis — be it in a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry. We do not wish
to dilate on other reported judgments, as it would result in repetition of similar position
and only burden this judgment.

xxx xxx xxx

69. …………… The summary jurisdiction to return the child be exercised in cases where
the child had been removed from its native land and removed to another country where,
may be, his native language is not spoken, or the child gets divorced from the social
customs and contacts to which he has been accustomed, or if its education in his native
land is interrupted and the child is being subjected to a foreign system of education,
for these are all acts which could psychologically disturb the child. Again the summary
jurisdiction be exercised only if the court to which the child has been removed is moved
promptly and quickly. The overriding consideration must be the interests and welfare of
the child.” (emphasis supplied)

20. At this stage, we deem it apposite to reproduce paragraphs 70 and 71 of the reported judgment,
which may have some bearing on the final order to be passed in this case. The same read thus:

“70. Needless to observe that after the minor child (Nethra) attains the age of majority,
she would be free to exercise herchoice to go to the UK and stay with her father. But
until she attains majority, she should remain in the custody of her mother unless the
court of competent jurisdiction trying the issue of custody of the child orders to the
contrary. However, the father must be given visitation rights, whenever he visits India.
He can do so by giving notice of at least two weeks in advance intimating in writing to
the appellant and if such request is received, the appellant must positively respond in
writing to grant visitation rights to Respondent 2 Mr Anand Raghavan (father) for two
hours per day twice a week at the mentioned venue in Delhi or as may be agreed by the
appellant, where the appellant or her representatives are necessarily present at or near
the venue. Respondent 2 shall not be entitled to, nor make any attempt to take the child
(Nethra) out from the said venue. The appellant shall take all such steps to comply with

page no. | 82 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

the visitation rights of Respondent 2, in its letter and spirit. Besides, the appellant will
permit Respondent 2 Mr Anand Raghavan to interact with Nethra on telephone/mobile
or video conferencing, on school holidays between 5 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. IST.

71. As mentioned earlier, the appellant cannot disregard the proceedings instituted before
the UK Court. She must participate in those proceedings by engaging solicitors of her
choice to espouse her cause before the High Court of Justice. For that, Respondent 2
Anand Raghavan will bear the costs of litigation and expenses to be incurred by the
appellant. If the appellant is required to appear in the said proceeding in person and
for which she is required to visit the UK, Respondent 2 Anand Raghavan will bear the
air fares or purchase the tickets for the travel of appellant and Nethra to the UK and
including for their return journey to India as may be required. In addition, Respondent
2 Anand Raghavan will make all arrangements for the comfortable stay of the appellant
and her companions at an independent place of her choice at reasonable costs. In the
event, the appellant is required to appear in the proceedings before the High Court of
Justice in the UK, Respondent 2 shall not initiate any coercive process against her which
may result in penal consequences for the appellant and if any such proceeding is already
pending, he must take steps to first withdraw the same and/or undertake before the
court concerned not to pursue it any further. That will be condition precedent to pave
way for the appellant to appear before the court concerned in the UK.”

21. In the subsequent judgment of two Judges of this Court in Prateek Gupta (supra), after analysing
all the earlier decisions, in paragraphs 49 to 51 the Court noted thus:

“49. The gravamen of the judicial enunciation on the issue of repatriation of a child
removed from its native country is clearly founded on the predominant imperative of
its overall well-being, the principle of comity of courts, and the doctrines of “intimate
contact and closest concern” notwithstanding. Though the principle of comity of courts
and the aforementioned doctrines qua a foreign court from the territory of which a
child is removed are factors which deserve notice in deciding the issue of custody and
repatriation of the child, it is no longer res integra that the ever-overriding determinant
would be the welfare and interest of the child. In other words, the invocation of these
principles/doctrines has to be judged on the touchstone of myriad attendant facts and
circumstances of each case, the ultimate live concern being the welfare of the child, other
factors being acknowledgeably subservient thereto. Though in the process of adjudication
of the issue of repatriation, a court can elect to adopt a summary enquiry and order
immediate restoration of the child to its native country, if the applicant/parent is prompt
and alert in his/her initiative and the existing circumstances ex facie justify such course
again in the overwhelming exigency of the welfare of the child, such a course could be
approvable in law, if an effortless discernment of the relevant factors testify irreversible,
adverse and prejudicial impact on its physical, mental, psychological, social, cultural
existence, thus exposing it to visible, continuing and irreparable detrimental and
nihilistic attenuations. On the other hand, if the applicant/parent is slack and there is
a considerable time lag between the removal of the child from the native country and
the steps taken for its repatriation thereto, the court would prefer an elaborate enquiry
into all relevant aspects bearing on the child, as meanwhile with the passage of time, it

page no. | 83 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

expectedly had grown roots in the country and its characteristic milieu, thus casting its
influence on the process of its grooming in its fold.

50. The doctrines of ‘intimate contact’ and ‘closest concern’ are of persuasive relevance, only
when the child is uprooted from its native country and taken to a place to encounter
alien environment, language, custom, etc. with the portent of mutilative bearing on the
process of its overall growth and grooming.

51. It has been consistently held that there is no forum convenience in wardship jurisdiction
and the peremptory mandate that underlines the adjudicative mission is the obligation
to secure the unreserved welfare of the child as the paramount consideration.” (emphasis
supplied) Again, in paragraph 53 of the judgment, the Court observed thus:

“53. .... The issue with regard to the repatriation of a child, as the precedential explications
would authenticate has to be addressed not on a consideration of legal rights of the
parties but on the sole and preponderant criterion of the welfare of the minor. As
aforementioned, immediate restoration of the child is called for only on an unmistakable
discernment of the possibility of immediate and irremediable harm to it and not
otherwise. As it is, a child of tender years, with malleable and impressionable mind and
delicate and vulnerable physique would suffer serious set-back if subjected to frequent
and unnecessary translocation in its formative years. It is thus imperative that unless, the
continuance of the child in the country to which it has been removed, is unquestionably
harmful, when judged on the touchstone of overall perspectives, perceptions and
practicabilities, it ought not to be dislodged and extricated from the environment and
setting to which it had got adjusted for its well-being.” (emphasis supplied)

22. After these decisions, it is not open to contend that the custody of the female minor child with
her biological mother would be unlawful, for there is presumption to the contrary. In such a case,
the High Court whilst exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 for issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus need not make any further enquiry but if it is called upon to consider the prayer for
return of the minor female child to the native country, it has the option to resort to a summary
inquiry or an elaborate inquiry, as may be necessary in the fact situation of the given case. In
the present case, the High Court noted that it was not inclined to undertake a detailed inquiry.
The question is, having said that whether the High Court took into account irrelevant matters
for recording its conclusion that the minor female child, who was in custody of her biological
mother, should be returned to her native country. As observed in Nithya Anand Raghavan’s
case(supra), the Court must take into account the totality of the facts and circumstances whilst
ensuring the best interest of the minor child. In Prateek Gupta’s case (supra), the Court noted
that the adjudicative mission is the obligation to secure the unreserved welfare of the child
as the paramount consideration. Further, the doctrine of “intimate and closest concern” are
of persuasive relevance, only when the child is uprooted from its native country and taken to
a place to encounter alien environment, language, custom etc. with the portent of mutilative
bearing on the process of its overall growth and grooming. The High Court in the present case
focused primarily on the grievances of the appellant and while rejecting those grievances, went
on to grant relief to respondent No.2 by directing return of the minor girl child to her native
country. On the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, there
is nothing to indicate that the native language (English) is not spoken or the child has been
divorced from the social customs to which she has been accustomed. Similarly, the minor child

page no. | 84 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

had just entered pre-school in the USA before she came to New Delhi along with her mother.
In that sense, there was no disruption of her education or being subjected to a foreign system of
education likely to psychologically disturb her. On the other hand, the minor child M is under
the due care of her mother and maternal grand-parents and other relatives since her arrival in
New Delhi. If she returns to US as per the relief claimed by the respondent No.2, she would
inevitably be under the care of a Nanny as the respondent No.2 will be away during the day
time for work and no one else from the family would be there at home to look after her. Placing
her under a trained Nanny may not be harmful as such but it is certainly avoidable. For, there
is likelihood of the minor child being psychologically disturbed after her separation from her
mother, who is the primary care giver to her. In other words, there is no compelling reason to
direct return of the minor child M to the US as prayed by the respondent No.2 nor is her stay
in the company of her mother, along with maternal grand-parents and extended family at New
Delhi, prejudicial to her in any manner, warranting her return to the US.
23. As expounded in the recent decisions of this Court, the issue ought not to be decided on the basis of
rights of the parties claiming custody of the minor child but the focus should constantly remain on
whether the factum of best interest of the minor child is to return to the native country or otherwise.
The fact that the minor child will have better prospects upon return to his/her native country, may
be a relevant aspect in a substantive proceedings for grant of custody of the minor child but not
decisive to examine the threshold issues in a habeas corpus petition. For the purpose of habeas corpus
petition, the Court ought to focus on the obtaining circumstances of the minor child having been
removed from the native country and taken to a place to encounter alien environment, language,
custom etc. interfering with his/her overall growth and grooming and whether continuance there
will be harmful. This has been theconsistent view of this Court as restated in the recent three- Judge
Bench decision in Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra), and the two-Judge Bench decision in Prateek
Gupta (supra). It is unnecessary to multiply other decisions on the same aspect.
24. In the present case, the minor child M is a US citizen by birth. She has grown up in her native
country for over three years before she was brought to New Delhi by her biological mother
(appellant) in December 2016. She had joined a pre- school in the USA. She had healthy bonding
with her father (respondent No.2). Her paternal grand-parents used to visit her in the USA at
some intervals. She was under the care of a Nanny during the day time, as her parents were
working. Indeed, the work place of her father is near the home. The biological father (respondent
No.2) of the minor child M has acquired US citizenship. Both father and mother of the minor
child M were of Indian origin but domiciled in the USA after marriage. The mother (appellant)
is a permanent resident of the USA-Green Card holder and has also applied for US citizenship.
In her affidavit filed before the Delhi High Court dated 30th November, 2017, she admits that
her legal status was complicated as she has ceased to be an Indian citizen and her status of
citizenship of the USA is in limbo.
25. Be that as it may, the father filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court for issuance of a
writ of Habeas Corpus for production of the minor child and for directions for her return to
USA without any loss of time. Given the fact that the parties performed a civil marriage on
19 th March, 2011 in the USA and cohabited in the native country and gave birth to minor
child M who grew up in that environment for at least three years, coupled with the fact that
the father and minor child M are US citizens and mother is a permanent resident of USA, the
closest contact and jurisdiction is possibly that of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,

page no. | 85 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

USA. However, we may not be understood to have expressed any final opinion in this regard.
At the same time, it is indisputable that the appellant and respondent No.2 first got married on
31 st October, 2010 as per Sikh rites, i.e. Anand Karaj ceremony, and Hindu Vedic rites and that
marriage was solemnised in New Delhi at which point of time the appellant was admittedly a
citizen of India. Presently, she is only a Green Card holder (permanent resident) of the US. It is,
therefore, debatable whether the Family Court at New Delhi, where the appellant has already
filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, has jurisdiction in that behalf including to decide on
the question of custody and guardianship in respect of the minor child M. For that reason, it
may be appropriate that the said proceedings are decided with utmost promptitude in the first
place before the appellant is called upon to appear before the US Court and including to produce
the minor child M before that Court.
26. It is not disputed that the appellant and minor child are presently in New Delhi and the appellant
has no intention to return to her matrimonial home in the U.S.A. The appellant has apprehensions
and serious reservations on account of her past experience in respect of which we do not think
it necessary to dilate in this proceedings. That is a matter to be considered by the Court of
Competent Jurisdiction called upon to decide the issue of dissolution of marriage and/or grant
of custody of the minor child, as the case may be. For the time being, we may observe that the
parties must eschew from pursuing parallel proceedings in two different countries. For, the first
marriage between the parties was performed in New Delhi as per Anand Karaj Ceremony and
Hindu Vedic rites on 31st October, 2010 and the petition for dissolution of marriage has been
filed in New Delhi. Whereas, the civil marriage ceremony on 19th March, 2011 at Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, USA, was performed to complete the formalities for facilitating the
entry of the appellant into the US and to obtain US Permanent Resident status. It is appropriate
that the proceedings pending in the Family Court at New Delhi are decided in the first place
including on the question of jurisdiction of that Court. Depending on the outcome of the said
proceedings, the parties will be free to pursue such other remedies as may be permissible in law
before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction.
27. As aforesaid, it is true that both respondent No.2 and also the minor child M are US citizens. The
minor girl child has a US Passport and has travelled to India on a tenure Visa which has expired.
That does not mean that she is in unlawful custody of her biological mother. Her custody with the
appellant would nevertheless be lawful. The appellant has already instituted divorce proceedings
in the Family Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. The respondent No.2 has also filed proceedings
before the Court in the US for custody of the minor girl child, directing her return to her natural
environment in the US. In such a situation, the arrangement directed by this Court in the case of
Nithya Anand Raghavan (supra), as exposited in paragraphs 70-71, may be of some help to pass
an appropriate order in the peculiar facts of this case, instead of directing the biological mother
to return to the US along with the minor girl child, so as to appear before the competent court in
the US. In that, the custody of the minor girl child M would remain with the appellant until she
attains the age of majority or the Court of competent jurisdiction, trying the issue of custody of
the minor child, orders to the contrary, with visitation and access rights to the biological father
whenever he would visit India and in particular as delineated in the interim order passed by us
reproduced in paragraph 11 (eleven) above.
28. A fortiori, dependant on the outcome of the proceedings, before the Family Court at New
Delhi, the appellant may then be legally obliged to participate in the proceedings before the

page no. | 86 |

Mrs. Kanika Goel Versus State of Delhi

US Court and must take all measures to effectively defend herself in the said proceedings by
engaging solicitors of her choice in the USA to espouse her cause before the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, USA. In that event, the respondent No.2 shall bear the cost of litigation
and expenses to be incurred by the appellant to pursue the proceedings before the Courts in the
native country. In addition, the respondent No.2 will bear the air fares or purchase the ticketsfor
the travel of the appellant and the minor child M to the USA and including their return journey
for India, as may be required. The respondent No.2 shall also make all suitable arrangements for
the comfortable stay of the appellant and her companions at an independent place of her choice,
at a reasonable cost. Further, the respondent No.2 shall not initiate any coercive/penal action
against the appellant and if any such proceeding initiated by him in that regard is pending, the
same shall be withdrawn and not pursued before the concerned Court any further. That will
be the condition precedent to facilitate the appellant to appear before the Courts in the USA
to effectively defend herself on all matters relating to the matrimonial dispute and including
custody and guardianship of the minor child.
29. The appellant and respondent No.2 must ensure early disposal of the proceedings for grant of
custody of the minor girl child to the appellant, instituted and pending before the Family Court
at Patiala House, New Delhi. All contentions available to the parties in that regard will have to
be answeredby the Family Court on its own merits and in accordance with law.
30. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and orders of the High Court and dispose of
the writ petition in the aforementioned terms. The appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.

qqq

page no. | 87 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

SONI GERRY VERSUS GERRY DOUGLAS

Supreme Court of India

Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipak Misra, CJI, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and
Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud

Soni Gerry .....Petitioner

Versus

Gerry Douglas.....Respondent

Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1606/2017

IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 18761/2011

WITH
SLP (Crl.) No. 6237/2017
Decided on : 5th January, 2018

Lower court granted child’s custody to father residing at Kuwait and Visitation rights to
mother residing at Thiruvananthapuram. An appeal is filed by aggrieved under Article 136
where parties agreed for said arrangement and court rejected mother’s claim for custody
under Guardians and Wards Act, 1860, to which mother brought allegations of contempt
where court directed personal presence of daughter. The daughter showed her interest in
pursuing studies from Kuwait, therefore the contempt was disposed of. Court gave directions
to father regarding the visitation rights of minor son where father had to pay Rs. 50,000 to
mother for every visit of minor son. Court further clarified that as daughter had attains age
of 18 years, she has full freedom to make her choice which she openly declared in the presence
of court. The special leave petition and the contempt petition are therefore disposed of.

ORDER
The petitioner had preferred a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Kerala for issuance of
an appropriate direction to produce her daughter in the Court, to which the High Court did not accede.
The reason for not acceding to the request by the High Court was that the daughter had completed 18
years of age on 19.9.2016. The contention advanced by the mother that she was in illegal custody of the
first respondent, the husband, in Kuwait, was not accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. It
came to a categorical conclusion that there had been no illegal detention of the daughter at Kuwait and,
therefore, the prayer for habeas corpus was not sustainable. Signature Not Verified During the pendency
of SLP(Crl.) No. 6237/2017 Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1606/2017 was filed, alleging that the orders
passed by this Court in SLP(C) No. 18761/2011 had been blatantly violated by the husband-contemnor.
To appreciate the contentions raised in the contempt petition, it is necessary to refer to the order dated
5.8.2011 passed in the said special leave petition, which is to the following effect:-

“Parties have agreed that both the children shall be sent to India from 20th August to 11th
September this year and from the next year the children shall be sent for the entire period of

page no. | 88 |

SONI GERRY VERSUS GERRY DOUGLAS

vacation to live with the mother. This shall be arranged in the same manner and mode as
envisaged by order dated 11th August, 2010.

The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in view of the aforesaid settlement between the
parties.”

It is necessary to note here that Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 223/2012 was filed, wherein on
29.11.2012, the following order came to be passed:-

“Pursuant to the directions issued by us, the respondent herein has produced the children.
We had a long discussion with the children and also the parents. The respondent herein, who
is the father, makes a statement that he is ready and willing to send the children to India to
prosecute their further studies after they finish their school course, namely, 9th standard and
2nd standard in Kuwait for a further period of 4 months. However, the petitioner says that in
the interest of the children the custody of the children be handed over to her.

We have not yet made up our mind in this regard. For the present, we direct the respondent to file an appropriate
undertaking before this court, firstly stating that he is ready and willing to send the children to India after they
finish their school course, namely, 9th standard and 2nd standard some time in March, 2013.
Secondly, he will also indicate whether the children should prosecute their further studies in India.
Thirdly, whether he would financially support the children who would be with their mother and would
be prosecuting their further studies in India.
List tomorrow (30.11.2012).” Eventually, the contempt petition was disposed of with the following
order:-

“Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Having carefully perused the records of the case, we are of the opinion that nothing survives in this
contempt petition for our consideration and decision. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed.

The respondent is directed to strictly comply with the earlier orders and directions issued by
this Court without leaving any margin of error which may compel the petitioner to approach
this Court once again with yet another contempt petition.

Ordered accordingly.”
It is contended by Mr. P.A. Noor Muhamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-mother
in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1606/2017 that the orders passed in SLP(C) No. 18761/2011 and
the earlier contempt petition therein [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 223/2012] have been seriously
violated by the husband and, therefore, the Court should impose an adequate punishment.
When the present special leave petition and the contempt petition were listed, an issue arose, whether
this Court could have an interaction or dialogue with the daughter of the petitioner-mother and the
respondent. A statement was made on behalf of the mother that the daughter is in custody of the
respondent-husband and she should be directed to remain personally present. Regard being had to the
aforesaid submission, this Court on 1.9.2017, passed the following order:-

“Mr. K. Rajeev, learned counsel, submits that he has instructions to appear on behalf of the
respondent-husband and to file the reply. The reply be filed within three weeks hence. Learned
counsel has assured the Court that the husband shall make arrangements for travel of the son
from Thiruvananthapuram to Kuwait by direct flight. Let the matter be listed on 22.9.2017.”

page no. | 89 |

landmark judgments of supreme court of india on CUSTODY OF CHILD, VISITATION RIGHTS & SHARED PARENTING

It was further directed that the daughter shall remain personally present on that day and the father
shall make all arrangements for her presence as they were staying together.
Vide order dated 22.9.2017, the matter was adjourned to 5.1.2018 with a further direction that the
daughter shall remain personally present and the father shall make all arrangements for her presence,
as they were staying together.
Pursuant to our orders dated 1.9.2017 and 22.9.2017, the daughter of the petitioner and the respondent
is present in Court today. On a query being made, it is put forth by her that she is pursuing a graduation
through correspondence course from the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), and presently
is doing an internship in Huawei Technologies Kuwait Co. W.L.L. She has categorically stated that her date
of birth is 19.9.1998. She has expressly stated that she would like to go to Kuwait and pursue her career.
At this juncture, Mr. P.A. Noor Muhamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-mother would
submit that her opinion is not an informed one and she has been pressurized by the respondent-
husband. For the aforesaid purpose, he has drawn our attention to certain Emails, which were sent by
the daughter to the petitioner-mother in the year 2016. We do not intend to refer to the contents of the
said Emails. Suffice it to state that we had directed the daughter of the petitioner to remain personally
present in Court and gave the responsibility to the father to see that she is present. She has appeared.
She has, without any hesitation, clearly stated that she intends to go back to Kuwait to pursue her
career. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that as a major, she is entitled to exercise
her choice and freedom and the Court cannot get into the aspect whether she has been forced by the
father or not. There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her father in Kuwait, but we are
not concerned with her reasons. What she has stated before the Court, that alone matters and that is
the heart of the reasoning for this Court, which keeps all controversies at bay.
It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its
own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice
remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law
permits and the Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of
sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.
As far as the son is concerned, he is still a minor. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel for the respondent-
husband submits that as per the order dated 1.9.2017 passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1606/2017
in SLP(C) No. 18761/2011 and SLP(Crl.) No. 6237/2017, the orders passed in the earlier contempt
petition [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 223/2012] and the reasoned order passed by the learned Family
Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a petition filed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, the petitioner-mother will be entitled to have interim custody during his summer vacation.
However, if during the summer vacation, the son is undergoing any essential summer courses, that
period will be excluded (not exceeding one month).
As the son is coming to stay with the mother during the summer vacation, it is directed that the respondent-
husband shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner-mother on every
visit of the child. The respondent-husband shall inform the petitioner-mother about the flight and other
relevant details well in advance. Needless to say, the petitioner-mother would be entitled to talk to the
son and the respondent-husband shall not create any kind of disturbance in that regard.
The special leave petition and the contempt petition are accordingly disposed of. All pending
interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

qqq

page no. | 90 |

JASMEET KAUR VERSUS NAVTEJ SINGH

JASMEET KAUR VERSUS NAVTEJ SINGH

Supreme Court of India
Bench : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday U. Lalit

Jasmeet Kaur ...Appellant(S)
Versus

Navtej Singh ...Respondent(S)

Civil Appeal No.(S). 2291 Of 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C)No(s).3090 of 2018)
Decided on : 20th February, 2018

Appellant wife and respondent husband are citizens of the USA, appellant filed a case of
guardianship in Family Court by applying order 7 R. 11 CPC on ground that the USA courts
have intimate contact with matter.

Held that marriage between the parties was performed in the USA where one child was
born out of wedlock and another was born in India. High Court upheld this decision.

Held that principle of comity of courts or forum conveniens cannot alone determine
threshold bar of jurisdiction. In such matters, paramount consideration is always stressed
in best interest of child. This cannot be subject matter of final determination in proceeding
under Order 7 R. 11 CPC, hence order passed by High Court set aside and Or. 7 R. 11 CPC
application dismissed. Further court directed parties to appear before Jurisdictional
Family Court.

ORDER
(1) Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2) The appellant filed a Guardianship Petition which was rejected by the Family Court under Order

VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the parties are nationals of
the United States of America and the U.S. courts have intimate contact with the matter. It was
observed the marriage between the parties took place in U.S.A. Out of the wedlock, one child
was born in 2012 in U.S.A. and the second child was born in India. The appellant came to India,
just before the delivery of the said child. The High Court has affirmed the said order.
(3) We have gone through the judgments of this Court in Surya Vadanan v. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2015) 5 SCC 450, Dr. V. Ravi Chandaran v. Union of India and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 174,
Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde, (1998) 1 SCC 112, Surinder Signature Not Verified Kaur v.
Harbax Singh Sandhu, (1984) 3 SCC 698, Sanjeev Majoo, (2011) 6 SCC 479. These judgments
were considered by this Court in a recent Three-Judge Bench Judgment in Nithya Anand
Raghavan v. State of NCT, (2017) 8 SCC 454 and it was observed :

“39. We must remind ourselves of the settled legal position that the concept of forum
convenience has no place in wardship jurisdiction. Further, the efficacy of the principle

page no. | 91 |