Archive

Archive for the ‘Child Custody’ Category

Karnataka HC:- Share Parenting Judgment.

September 28, 2013 1 comment

Shared Parenting Judgement by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. http://on.fb.me/15AjnAl

 

Case Number:  MFA 1729/2011
Judge(s):  N.K.PATIL AND B.MANOHAR
Petitioners:  K M VINAYA
Respondents:  B R SRINIVAS
http://bit.ly/15Ajtb6

Supreme Court: Grand Parents are entitled for Visitation Rights.

January 23, 2013 Leave a comment

Supreme Court of India

I.S.Sirohi
vs
Commr.Of Police & Ors.
on 27 August, 2008
Author: ………………..J.
Bench: Altamas Kabir, Markandey Katju

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1361 OF 2008

[Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.5919 of 2007]

I.S.SIROHI ..Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

COMMR.OF POLICE & ORS. ..Respondent(s) ORDER

 

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2007 passed by the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(Crl.)No.1225 of 2007 filed by Shri I.S. Sirohi, the appellant herein, who is the father-in-law of Mrs. Deepti Sirohi, the respondent No.4 herein. The writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 18/09/2007 by a non-speaking order, which reads as follows:- "In the circumstances of the case we feel that such a writ petition does not lie.

Dismissed."

2

3. Having regard to the nature of the order passed, notice was issued in the special leave petition on 12th October, 2007, and subsequently, on 7th December, 2007, after service of notice when the matter was listed, the parties were referred to mediation before the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre and the matter was directed to be listed once a report was received in respect of such mediation.

4. When the matter was listed on 25th February, 2008, it was directed to be put up for final disposal, and accordingly, the same was listed before us on 26th August, 2008. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties, we had directed the matter to appear today in Chambers, when the respondent No.4-wife was directed to produce the two children who were the subject matter of the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. She was also directed to be personally present, and a similar direction was given with regard to the paternal grandfather.

5. Today, when the matter was taken up, we had occasion to speak to the respondent-wife, the two children, Ruchira, aged approximately 10 years, and Rajat, aged 7 years, the parents-in-law of the respondent 4-wife and their respective counsel.

6. Since we were considering the writ petition wherein a writ in the nature of habeas corpus, as far as the two children are concerned, had been prayed for and which had been dismissed by a one sentence order of the High Court, we were of the view that since the children have been separated from the paternal 3

grand-parents as well as their father for almost two years, it would be in the best interest of all concerned, and especially the children, to pass appropriate interim orders to enable the paternal grand-parents of the children, as well as the husband of the respondent No.4, to have access to the children. We are fully alive to the fact that this is not a custody proceeding, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the children should also not be alienated from the company and affection of their father or paternal grand-parents. In our view, the children require the care, love and affection, both of the father’s side of the family, as well as that of the mother, and that none of them should be denied access to the children. Accordingly, after having spoken to the children and the parties, as also their learned counsel and keeping in mind the interest of the children, we pass the following interim order:

(1)The paternal grand-parents of the children will be entitled to meet the children at the house of the respondent No.4-wife every alternate week-end, preferably on Sunday, between 9.00 A.M. and 1.00 P.M. in the presence of a member of the family of the respondent No.4-wife or a mutual friend. During such visit, the grand-parents of the children shall not be allowed to take the children out of the house of the respondent No.4-wife. However, 4

during holidays consisting of four or more consecutive holidays, the appellant before us will be at liberty to keep the children with him at least for two days during the said period. The respondent No.4- wife shall arrange to drop the children to the house of the appellant for the said purpose, and to take back the children to her custody at a day and time to be mutually fixed;

(2)Although, Dr. Niren Sirohi, the father of the children and the husband of the respondent No.4 is not a party before us, since the writ petition for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus has been filed by his father, seemingly on his behalf also, we further direct that he too will be entitled to visit the children as and when he visits India, upon prior notice to the respondent No.4-wife, who shall thereupon give proper access to him to meet the children either in her presence or in the presence of some other family member of the respondent No.4-wife or a mutual friend, at a date and time to be mutually agreed upon. In case the children agree to go out with him for an outing, he will be at liberty to take them out, but shall return them to the custody of the respondent No.4-wife by 6.00 P.M. at her residence. Dr. Niren Sirohi will under no circumstances be entitled to remove the children from the custody 5

of the respondent No.4-wife, except in the manner aforesaid, or to take them out of India without applying to this Court for such permission. Ms. Asha Nair, learned advocate appearing for the State, shall give necessary instructions in this regard to all concerned authorities and provide them with a copy of this order to ensure that the same is strictly implemented. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Dr. Niren Sirohi in the trial court, where the proceeding under Section 498A Cr.P.C. is pending, undertakes to obtain an affidavit from Dr. Niren Sirohi to that effect and to file the same in this Court within a month from date.

(3)The visitation rights being given to the paternal grand-parents and Dr. Niren Sirohi should not in any way cause any interference with the normal school routine of the children, who are attending school in Greater Kailash-II.

7. The affidavit to be affirmed by Dr. Niren Sirohi should contain an undertaking that he will not proceed any further with the civil and criminal cases pending in the U.S.A. during the pendency of this appeal before this Court and shall not under any circumstances remove the children from India or from the custody of the respondent No.4-wife, except in the manner and to the extent indicted in this order, until further orders of this Court. Similarly, the respondent 6

No.4-wife also undertakes not to proceed with the criminal and civil proceedings filed by her, which are pending here in India.

8. We also stay the criminal proceedings which are now pending before the learned Magistrate in Patiala House, New Delhi, though we have been informed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4-wife that the complaint against the paternal grand-parents has since been withdrawn. We have been further informed that the proceedings before the Magistrate has been stayed by the High Court and such stay is operative till 1st September, 2008. By virtue of this order, the stay shall continue until further orders.

9. In addition to the above, it has been mentioned by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4-wife, that her client and Dr. Niren Sirohi jointly own a house property in Lexington, Massachussets, U.S.A., and that attempts are being made by Dr. Sirohi to sell off the same. Though, not denied, the said submission made by Ms. Malhotra has been explained by

learned counsel appearing for Dr. Sirohi indicating that since expenses for maintaining such a big house consisting of nine rooms, was costing him about 4000/- dollars a month, he was being compelled to sell the same, and under the prevalent laws in the U.S.A., he would have to keep aside 50% of the said proceeds in a separate account in the name of the respondent No.4-wife. We can 7

see no ground to prevent the sale from being proceeded with and completed since it cannot prejudice the respondent No.4-wife, who will be entitled to receive 50% of the sale proceeds as her share of the property. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the sale of the property and Dr. Sirohi may proceed with such sale, if he so wishes, subject to depositing 50% of the sale proceeds in the name of the respondent No.4-wife in a separate account to her credit.

10. Let this matter be listed on 26th November, 2008, for further directions, with liberty to the parties to mention for variation of this order or for other orders, even before the said date, in the event it becomes necessary to do so. ………………..J.

(ALTAMAS KABIR)

………………..J.

(MARKANDEY KATJU)

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 27, 2008.

 

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1979218/

Supreme Court of India: Father wins the custody of Daughter, Parental Alienation Symdrome (PAS) had been first cited in SC

January 22, 2013 Leave a comment

Parental Alienation Symdrome (PAS) had been first cited in SC intrestingly
by the mother (a paediatrician doctor) against father (A lawyer) in GAWA
—————–
full text

HEAD NOTES
Disposing of the appeal with some modifications of the order of the Family Court, this Court

HELD: 1.1. The child, who is a little more than 12 years of age, is highly
intelligent, having consistently done extremely well in her studies in
school, and this Court is convinced that despite the tussle between her
parents, she would be in a position to make an intelligent choice with
regard to her custody. She has no animosity as such towards her mother, she would prefer to be with the father with whom she felt more comfortable. The minor child also informed the Court that she had established a very good relationship with her paternal aunt who was now staying in her father’s house and she was able to relate to her aunt in matters which would concern a growing girl during her period of adolescence. [355-c-e]

1.2. There is no reason to consider the respondent ineligible to look after
the minor. In fact, after having obtained custody of the minor child, the
respondent does not appear to have neglected the minor or to look after all her needs. The child appears to be happy in the respondent’s company and has also been doing consistently well in school. The respondent appears to be financially stable and is not also disqualified in any way from being the guardian of the minor child. No allegation, other than his purported apathy towards the minor, has been levelled against the respondent by the appellant. Such an allegation is not borne out from the materials and is not sufficient to make the respondent ineligible to act as the guardian of the minor. This Court, therefore, feels that the interest of the minor will be best served if she remains with the respondent but with sufficient access to the appellant to visit the minor at frequent intervals but so as not to disturb and disrupt her normal studies and other activities.[355-f-g;
356-a-b]

Hoshie Shavaksha Dolikuka v. Thirty Hoshie Dolikuka, AIR (1984) SC 410;
Kumar v. Jahgirdar v. Chethana Ramatheertha, [2004] 2 SCC 688 and Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A.Chakramakkal, AIR (1973) SC 2090, referred to.

Kurian C. Jose v. Meena Jose, (1992) 1 KLT 818 and                   Saraswatibai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved, AIR (1941) Bombay 103, referred to.

Appellant-In-Person.

M.P. Vinod, Sajith and A. Raghunath for the Respondents.

SUBJECT

Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Sections 7 and 25-Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 6-Claim of custody of child by father and mother after divorce-Child preferred to stay with her father-Family court holding in favour of father as per child’s wishes-High Court dismissing the appeal of the mother-Correctness of-Held, on facts, after having custody of the child, the father looked after all her needs and the child appears to be happy with her father-Hence, the interest of the child will be best served if she remains with her father but with sufficient access to the mother to visit her child at frequent intervals as directed by the Court.

Appellant-doctor and respondent-lawyer got married under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and a girl child was born to them. The appellant left her matrimonial home alongwith the child without informing the respondent. The respondent filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus in High Court which was disposed of upon an undertaking given by the appellant to bring the child back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, the respondent filed two applications before Family Court under sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and words Act, 1890 and under sections 6 of the Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, 1956. The respondent also filed an application before the Family Court for interim custody of the minor child. After interviewing the minor child to elucidate her views with regard to the respondent’s prayer for interim custody, the Family Court allowed the two applications of the respondent by giving certain directions and directed the appellant to give the custody of the child to the respondent.

The appellant filed an appeal in High Court wherein the order of the Family Court was stayed. The respondent filed an application before the High Court for review of the order of stay. The High Court directed the Family Court to interview the minor child. The Family Court interviewed the minor child and gave a report the High Court stating that the minor child preferred to stay
with the respondent. The High Court vacated the interim stay and granted
custody of the minor child to the respondent till the disposal of the appeal. The respondent, thereafter, filed an application for divorce before the Family Court. The appellant filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court granting custody of the minor child to the respondent, which was dismissed. The High Court thereafter dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Immediately thereafter, the Family Court granted divorce to the parties.

In appeal to the Court, the appellant-mother contended that the minor child
was of tender age and would soon attain puberty when she would need the
guidance and instructions of a woman to enable her to deal with both
physical and emotional changes which take place during such period; that
she, being a doctor, would be in a better position to take care of the needs
of the minor child in comparison to the respondent who had little time to
look after the needs of the minor child; that the minor child was extremely
happy with her till the respondent-father began to claim custody of the
child and soon after obtaining the custody, the respondent influenced his
child to tell the Family Court that she preferred to stay with her father;
that the child has been exposed by the respondent to “Parental Alienation
Syndrome” and hence the minor child, inspite of her being with the appellant
for 7 years, had expressed a preference to be with the respondent after she
was placed in his custody; that section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 recognised the mother also as the natural guardian of
the minor; that she paid school admission and tuition fees for the child’s
schooling in a good school and for extracurricular activities; that she made
various financial investments for the benefit of the minor child; that, although she was granted visitation rights by an interim order of this Court, she was unable to remain in contact with her because of distance and that the respondent never allowed her to meet the minor child and spend sufficient time with her.

The respondent-father, denying the various allegations of the appellant,
contended that the minor child was suddenly and surreptitiously removed from his custody by the appellant who left her matrimonial home without informing the appellant; that the minor child made her preference to be with her father before the Family Court even though the appellant forcibly removed the minor child from the respondent; that he made arrangements with his elder sister to look after his minor child’s needs which was duly considered by the Family Court and the High Court; and that he had sufficient finances to look after and provide for all the needs of the minor child. The
respondent submitted that the appellant was welcome to visit the minor child
either at the respondent’s house or in some neutral place and to even keep
the child with her on specified days if she was ready and willing to stay
with the appellant.

CITATIONS
2006 AIR 1343, 2006(2 )SCR342 , 2006(3 )SCC62 , 2006(2 )SCALE388 ,
2006

CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 6626 of 2004

PETITIONER:
Sheila B. Das

RESPONDENT:
P.R. Sugasree

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/02/2006

BENCH:
B.P. Singh & Altamas Kabir

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T

ALTAMAS KABIR,J.

The appellant, who is a paediatrician by profession, was married to the respondent, who is a lawyer by profession, on 29th March, 1989, at Thrissur in Kerala under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. A girl child, Ritwika, was born of the said marriage on 20th June, 1993.
As will appear from the materials on record, the appellant, for whatever reason, left her matrimonial home at Thrissur on 26th February, 2000, alongwith the child and went to Calicut without informing the respondent.
Subsequently, on coming to learn that the appellant was staying at Calicut, the respondent moved an application in the High Court at Kerala for a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, which appears to have been disposed of on 24th March, 2000 upon an undertaking given by the appellant to bring the child to Thrissur. On 24th March, 2000, the respondent, alleging that the minor child had been wrongfully removed from his custody by the appellant, filed an application before the Family Court at Thrissur under Sections 7 and 25 of the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, and also Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which came to be numbered as OP 193 of 2000 and OP 239 of 2000.
Before taking up the said two applications for disposal, the learned Judge of the Family Court at Thrissur took up the respondent’s application for interim
custody of the minor child and on 27th April, 2000 interviewed the minor child in order to elucidate her views with regard to the respondent’s prayer for interim custody. No order was made at that time on the respondent’s application for interim custody. On 20th March, 2001, the learned Judge of the Family Court at Thrissur took up the two applications filed by the respondent under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act for final disposal. While disposing of the matter the learned Judge had occasion
to interview the minor child once again before delivering judgment and ultimately by his order of even date the learned Judge of the Family Court at Thrissur allowed the applicati16ons filed by the respondent by passing
the following order:-

“1. The respondent is directed to give custody of the child to the petitioner the
father of the child, the natural guardian immediately after closing of the schools for summer vacation.

2. The father shall take steps to continue the study of the minor child in
CSM Central School Edaserry and steps to restore all the facilities to the minor child to enjoy her extra curricular activities and studies also.

3. The respondent mother is at liberty to visit the child either at the home of the petitioner or at school at any time.

4. If the mother respondent shifts her residence to a place within 10 kms.
radius of the school where the child is studying the child can reside with the
mother for not less than three days in a week. The petitioner father shall not,
object to taking of the child by the mother to her own house in such condition.

5. The father the petitioner shall meet all the expenses for the education, food
and cloths etc. of the minor child and the mother of her own accord contribute to the same anything for the child and the father should not prohibit the mother from giving the child anything for her comfort and pleasant living.

6. If the mother the respondent fails to stay within 10 kms. radius of the CSM
central School, Edasserry however she is entitled to get custody of the child for 2 days in any of the weekend in a month and 10 days during the Summer vacation and 2 days during the Onam hoilidays excluding the Thiruvonam day.

7. This arrangement for custody is made on the basis of the prime consideration for the welfare of the minor child and in case there is any change in the situation or circumstance affecting the welfare of the minor child, both of the parties are at liberty to approach this court for fresh directions on the basis of the changed circumstance.

OP 239/2000 is partly allowed prohibiting the respondent husband by a
permanent injunction from removing or taking forcefully the “B” schedule articles mentioned in the plant. The parties in both these cases are to suffer their costs.”

Being dissatisfied with the order of the Family Court, the appellant herein filed an appeal in the High Court of Kerala, being M.F.A.No.365/01, wherein by an order dated 21st May, 2001, the order of the Family Court was stayed. The respondent thereupon filed an application before the High Court for review of the said order and in the pending proceedings, a direction was
given by the High Court to the Family Court at Calicut to interview the minor child. The report of the Family Court was duly filed before the High Court on 5th July, 2001.
From the said report, a copy of which has been included in the paperbook, it is evident that the minor child preferred to stay with her father and ultimately by its order dated 25th July, 2001 the High Court vacated the stay granted by it on 21st May, 2001.

On the application of the appellant herein, one Dr. S.D. Singh, Psychiatrist, was also appointed by the High Court on 14th September, 2001, to interview the appellant and the respondent in order to make a psychological evaluation and to submit a report. On such report being filed, the High Court by its order dated 31st May, 2002, granted custody of the minor child to the respondent till the disposal of the appeal.
Soon thereafter, in June 2002, the respondent filed an application for divorce before the Family Court at Thrissur. While the same was pending, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition being S.L.P.( C) C.C.No.6954/2002 against the order of the High Court granting custody of the minor child to the respondent till the disposal of the appeal. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed on 9th September, 2002. The appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court against the order of the learned Judge of the Family Court allowing the respondent’s application under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, being M.F.A. No.365/01, was also dismissed on 16th June, 2003. Immediately, thereafter, on 28th June, 2003, the Family Court granted divorce to the parties. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of her appeal, being M.F.A.No.365/01, the appellant herein filed the instant Special Leave Petition, being SLP ) No. 18961/2003, which after admission was re- numbered as Civil Appeal No.6626/2004. On 20th July, 2004, the appellant herein filed a petition in the pending Special Leave Petition for interim visitation rights in respect of her minor child for the months of August and September, 2004. After considering the submissions made by the appellant, who was appearing in person, and the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court passed the following order:-

“This petition has been filed by the mother of minor girl-Ritwika, aged about
12 years, challenging the impugned order of the High Court dated 16th June, 2003. By the impugned order the High Court confirmed the order of the Family Court holding that it is in the best interest of the child that she be in the custody of the father. The High Court, however, permitted the petitioner to visit the child at the house of the father once in a
month, that is, first Sunday of every month and spend the whole day with the
child there with a further stipulation that she will not be removed from the father’s house. The petitioner and the respondent have not been living together since February, 2000. The divorce between them took place by order dated 26th June, 2003.

On question of interim custody, in terms of the order dated 30th April, 2003,
the Family Court Trichur, was directed to make an order regarding the visitation rights of the petitioner for the months of May, June and July, 2004 so that the petitioner may meet her daughter at the place of some neutral person and, if necessary, in the presence of a family counsellor or such other person deemed just, fit and proper by the Family Court.
The Family Court was directed to fix any two days, in months of May, June and July of 2004, considering the convenience of the parties, when the petitioner may be in a position to spend entire day with her child.

Pursuant to the above said order the Family Court had fixed two days in the
months of May, June and July, 2004 so that the petitioner could meet her
daughter on those days. The Family Court directed that the said meeting shall
take place in the room of family counsellor in Court precincts. According
to the petitioner the said arrangement was not satisfactory, so much so that
ultimately she made a request to the Family Court that instead of meeting her
daughter in the room of the family counsellor, the earlier arrangement of
meeting her at father’s house was may be restored. The Family Court, however, did not modify the order having regard to the orders passed by this Court on 30th April, 2004. It is, however, not necessary at this stage to delve any further on this aspect.

Ritwika is studying in 7th class in a school in Trichur. Having heard
petitioner-in-person and learned counsel for the respondent and on perusal of
record, we are of the view that without prejudice to parties’ rights and contentions in Special Leave Petition, some interim order for visitation rights of the petitioner for the months of August and September, 2004 deserves to be passed. Accordingly, we direct as under:

(1) The petitioner can visit the house of the respondent at Trichur on every
Sunday commencing from 1st August, 2004 and be with Ritwika from 10.00
a.m. to 5.00 p.m. During the stay of the petitioner at the house of the respondent, only the widowed sister of the respondent can remain present. The respondent shall not remain present in the house during the said period. It would be open to the petitioner to take Ritwika for outing, subject to the condition that Ritwika readily agrees for it. We also hope that when at the house of the respondent, the petitioner would be properly looked after, insofar as, normal facilities and courtesies are concerned;

(2) We are informed that the school in which Ritwika is studying shall be closed for 7 days in the month of August, 2004 during Onam festival. It would be open to the petitioner to take the child for outing during those holidays for a period of three days. After the expiry of three days, it will be the responsibility of the petitioner to leave the child at the house of the respondent.

The arrangement about meeting on every Sunday would also continue in the
month of September, 2004.
List the matter on 5th October, 2004”

The question relating to the appellant’s visitation rights pending decision of the Special Leave Petition came up for consideration before this Court again on 5th October, 2004, when on a reference to its earlier order dated 20th July, 2004, this Court further directed that the appellant would be at liberty to move appropriate applications in M.F.A.No.365/01, which had been decided by the High Court on 16th June, 2003, and the High Court on hearing the parties or their counsel would pass such orders as it considered appropriate in respect of the interim custody of Ritwika during the Christmas Holidays. It was also clarified that till the matter was finally decided by this Court, it would be open to the appellant to make similar applications before the High
Court which would have to be considered on its own merits, since it was felt that the High Court would be in a better position to consider the local conditions and pass interim orders including conditions, if any, required to be
placed on the parties.
As mentioned hereinbefore, on leave being granted, the Special Leave Petition was renumbered as Civil Appeal No.6626/04, which has been taken up by us for final hearing and disposal.
The appellant, who appeared in person, urged that both the Family Court and the High Court had erred in law in removing the minor child from the custody of the mother to the father’s custody, having particular regard to the fact that the minor girl was still of tender age and had attained the age when a mother’s care and counseling was paramount for the health and well-being of the minor girl child. The appellant submitted that the minor child would soon attain puberty when she would need the guidance and instructions of a woman to
enable her to deal with both physical and emotional changes which take place during such period.
Apart from the above, the appellant, who, as stated hereinbefore, is a doctor by profession, claimed to be in a better position to take care of the needs of the minor in comparison to the respondent who, it was alleged, had little time at his disposal to look after the needs of the minor child.

From the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties, the appellant tried to point out that from morning till late at night, the respondent was busy in court with his own work and activities which left the minor child completely alone and uncared for. According to the appellant, the respondent who had a farm house some distance away from Thrissur, spent his week- ends and
even a major part of the week days in the said farm house. The appellant urged, that as a mother, she knew what was best for the child and being a professional person herself she was in a position to provide the minor not only with all such comforts as were necessary for her proper and complete upbringing, but also with a good education and to create in her an interest in extra- curricular activities such as music and dancing. The appellant strongly urged that the respondent had never had any concern for the minor child since her birth and till the time when the appellant left with her for Calicut.
The appellant contended that for 7 years after the birth of the minor child, the appellant had single-handedly brought up the minor since the respondent was too pre- occupied with other activities to even notice her.
According to the appellant, the minor child was extremely happy to be with her till the respondent began to claim custody of the minor and soon after obtaining such custody, he was able to influence the minor to such an extent that she even went to the extent of informing the learned Judge of the Family Court that she preferred to stay with her father.
On this aspect of the matter, the appellant urged that the minor had been exposed by the respondent to what she termed as “Parental Alienation Syndrome”. She urged that such a phenomenon was noticeable in parents who had been separated and who are bent upon poisoning the mind of their minor children against the other party. According to the appellant, there could otherwise be no other explanation as to why even after being with the appellant for 7 years, the minor child had expressed a preference to be with her father after she was placed in his custody. The appellant laid stress on
her submissions that not only till the age of 8 years, when custody of the minor child was given to him, but even thereafter the respondent had all along been an absentee father taking little or no interest in the affairs and upbringing of the minor child. According to the appellant, in view of the peculiar habits of the respondent, the minor child was left on her own much of
the time, which was neither desirable nor healthy for a growing adolescent girl child.
Urging that she had the best interest of the minor child at heart, the appellant submitted that although under the provisions of Hindu Law by which the parties were governed, the father is accepted as the natural guardian of a minor, there were several instances where the courts had accepted the mother as the natural guardian of a minor in preference to the father even when
he was available. Referring to Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, which provides that the natural guardian of a Hindu minor in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl is the father and after him
the mother; provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of 5 years shall ordinarily be with the mother, the appellant submitted that the aforesaid provision had recognized the mother also as the natural
guardian of a minor. It was urged that in various cases the Courts had considered the said provision and had opined that there could be cases where in spite of the father being available, the mother should be treated to be the natural guardian of a minor having regard to the incapacity of the father to act as the natural guardian of such minor.
In support of her aforesaid submission, the appellant referred to and relied on the decision of this Court in Hoshie Shavaksha Dolikuka vs. Thirty Hoshie
Dolikuka, reported in AIR 1984 SC 410, wherein having found the father of the minor to be disinterested in the child’s welfare this Court held that the father was not entitled to the custody of the child.

The appellant also referred to and relied on a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in the case of Kurian C. Jose vs. Meena Jose, reported in
1992 (1) KLT 818, wherein having regard to the fact that the father was living with a concubine who was none else than the youngest sister of the mother, it was held that the father was not entitled to act as the guardian of the minor. On a consideration of the provisions of Section 17 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, it was also held that a minor’s preference need not necessarily be decisive but is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while considering the question of custody.
Reference was also made to another decision of this Court in the case of Kumar V. Jahgirdar vs. Chethana Ramatheertha, (2004) 2 SCC 688, wherein in consideration of the interest of the minor child, the mother, who had re-married, was given custody of the female child who was on the advent of puberty, on the ground that at such an age a female child primarily requires a mother’s care and attention. The Court was of the view that the absence of female company in the house of the father was a relevant factor in deciding the grant of custody of the minor female child. The appellant urged that the courts in the aforesaid cases had considered the welfare of the minor to be of
paramount importance in deciding the question of grant of custody. The appellant urged that notwithstanding the fact that the minor child had expressed before the learned Judge of the Family Court that she preferred to
be with the father, keeping in mind the fact that the welfare of the minor was of paramount importance, the court should seriously consider whether the minor child should be deprived of her mother’s company during her period of adolescence when she requires her mother’s counselling and guidance. The appellant submitted that while the respondent had indulged Ritwika so as to win over her affection, the appellant had tried to instill in her mind a sense of discipline which had obviously caused a certain amount of resentment in Ritwika. The appellant submitted that the court should look behind the curtain to see what was best for the minor girl child at this very crucial period of her growing up. In support of her aforesaid submission, the appellant referred to and relied on a decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Saraswatibai Shripad Ved vs. Shripad Vasanji Ved, AIR 1941 Bombay 103,
wherein in a similar application under the Guardians and Wards Act, it was held that since the minor’s interest is the paramount consideration, the mother was preferable to the father as a guardian. The appellant emphasized the observation made in the judgment that if the mother is a suitable person to take charge of the child, it is quite impossible to find an adequate substitute for her for the custody of a child of tender years notwithstanding the fact that the father remains as the natural guardian of the minor.
A similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of Rosy Jacob vs. Jacob A. Chakramakkal, AIR 1973 SC 2090, wherein in the facts and circumstance of
the case, the custody of the daughter (even though she was more than 13 years of age ) and that of the youngest minor son, was considered to be more beneficial with the wife rather than with the husband. The appellant submitted that during the child’s growing years, she had from out of her own professional income, provided her with amenities which a growing child needs, including admission and tuition fees for the child’s schooling in a good school and for extra- curricular activities. The appellant submitted that she
had made fixed deposits for the benefit of the minor and had even taken out life insurance policies where the minor child had been made the nominee. The appellant submitted that apart from the above, she had also made various financial investments for the benefit of the minor so that the minor child would not be wanting in anything if she was allowed to remain with the appellant.
The appellant submitted that although she had been granted visitation rights by the different interim orders, since she was residing in Calicut and the
respondent was residing in Thrissur, she was unable to remain in contact with her minor daughter on account of the distance between Calicut and Thrissur. In fact, the appellant complained of the fact that on several occasions when she had gone to meet her minor child at the residence of the respondent, she had not been allowed to meet the child or to spend sufficient time with her. The appellant submitted that the interest of the minor child would be best served if her custody was given to the appellant. The claim of custody of the minor child made by the appellant was very strongly resisted by the respondent who denied all the various allegations levelled against him regarding his alleged apathy towards the minor and her development. It was submitted on his behalf that till the age of 7 years, the child had been living with both the parents, and was well cared for and looked after during this period. The minor child was suddenly and surreptitiously removed from the respondent’s custody by the appellant who left her matrimonial home on 26th
February, 2000 without informing the appellant who had gone out of Thrissur on his professional work. It was submitted that only after coming to learn that the appellant had removed the child to Calicut that the respondent was compelled to file a Habeas Corpus Petition in the Kerala High Court which ended upon an undertaking given by the appellant to bring the minor child to Thrissur. It was only thereafter that the respondent was compelled to file the application under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act and
under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,1956.
According to the respondent, even though the appellant had forcibly removed the minor to Calicut, thereby depriving the respondent of the minor child’s
company, the said minor during her interview by the learned Judge of the Family Court at Thrissur made her preference to be with the father known to the learned Judge.

On behalf of the respondent, it was also submitted that keeping in mind the fact that the girl child was attaining the age of puberty, the respondent had
arranged with his elder sister, who was a retired headmistress of a school, to come and stay with him and to attend to the minor’s needs during her growing years when she required the guidance and counselling of a woman. It was submitted that the said aspect of the matter was duly considered by the Family Court as well as by the High Court on the basis of an affidavit filed by
the respondent’s sister expressing her willingness to stay with the respondent to look after the minor child.
In addition to the above, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the Court had found on evidence that he had sufficient finances to look after and provide for all the needs of the minor child. In any event, what was of paramount importance was the welfare of the minor and the court had also taken into consideration the preference expressed by the minor in terms of
Section 17 (3) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.

On behalf of the respondent it was submitted that the respondent was quite alive to the fact that the minor child should not be deprived of her mother’s company and that for the said purpose, the appellant was welcome to visit the minor child either at the respondent’s house or in some neutral place and to even keep the child with her on specified days if she was ready and willing to stay with the appellant. What was sought to be emphasized on behalf of the respondent was that in the interest of the child she should be allowed to remain with him since he was better equipped to look after the minor, besides being her natural guardian and also having regard to the wishes of the minor herself.
Having regard to the complexities of the situation in which we have been called upon to balance the emotional confrontation of the parents of the minor child and the welfare of the minor, we have given anxious thought to what would be in the best interest of the minor. We have ourselves spoken to the minor girl, without either of the parents being present, in order to ascertain her preference in the matter. The child who is a little more than 12 years of age is highly intelligent, having consistently done extremely well in her studies in school, and we were convinced that despite the tussle between her parents, she would be in a position to make an intelligent choice with regard to her custody. From our discussion with the minor, we have been able
to gather that though she has no animosity as such towards her mother, she would prefer to be with the father with whom she felt more comfortable. The minor child also informed us that she had established a very good relationship with her paternal aunt who was now staying in her father’s house and she was able to relate to her aunt in matters which would concern a growing girl during her period of adolescence.
We have also considered the various decisions cited by the appellant which were all rendered in the special facts of each case. In the said cases the father
on account of specific considerations was not considered to be suitable to act as the guardian of the minor. The said decisions were rendered by the Courts keeping in view the fact that the paramount consideration in such cases was the interest and well-being of the minor. In this case, we see no reason to consider the respondent ineligible to look after the minor. In fact, after having
obtained custody of the minor child, the respondent does not appear to have neglected the minor or to look after all her needs. The child appears to be happy in the respondent’s company and has also been doing consistently well in school. The respondent appears to be financially stable and is not also disqualified in any way from being the guardian of the minor child. No allegation, other than his purported apathy towards the minor, has been levelled against the respondent by the appellant. Such an allegation is not borne out from the materials before us and is not sufficient to make the respondent ineligible to act as the guardian of the minor.

We, therefore, feel that the interest of the minor will be best served if she remains with the respondent but with sufficient access to the appellant to visit the minor at frequent intervals but so as not to disturb and disrupt her normal studies and other activities. We, accordingly dispose of this appeal by retaining the order passed by the learned Judge of the Family Court at
Thrissur on 20.3.2001 while disposing of O.P.No.193/2000 filed by the respondent herein under Sections 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890 with the following modifications:-

1. The respondent shall make arrangements for Ritwika to continue her studies in her present school and to ensure that she is able to take part in
extra-curricular activities as well.

2. The respondent shall meet all the expenses of the minor towards her education, health, care, food and clothing and in the event the appellant also wishes to contribute towards the upbringing of the child, the respondent shall not create any obstruction to and/or prevent the appellant from also making
such contribution.

3. The appellant will be at liberty to visit the minor child either in the respondent’s house or in the premises of a mutual friend as may be agreed upon on every second Sunday of the month. To enable the appellant to meet the child, the respondent shall ensure the child’s presence either in his house
or in the house of the mutual friend agreed upon at 10.00 A.M. The appellant will be entitled to take the child out with her for the day, and to bring her
back to the respondent’s house or the premises of the mutual friend within 7.00 P.M. in the evening.

4. In the event the appellant shifts her residence to the same city where the minor child will be staying, the appellant will, in addition to the above, be
entitled to meet the minor on every second Saturday of the month, and, if the child is willing, the appellant will also be entitled to keep the child with her overnight on such Saturday and return her to the respondent’s custody by the following Sunday evening at 7.00 P.M.

5. The appellant, upon prior intimation to the respondent, will also be entitled to meet the minor at her school once a week after school hours for about an hour.

6. The appellant will also be entitled to the custody of the minor for 10 consecutive days during the summer vacation on dates to be mutually settled
between the parties.

7. The aforesaid arrangement will continue for the present, but the parties will be at liberty to approach the Family Court at Thrissur for fresh directions should the same become necessary on account of changed circumstances.

The parties will each bear their own costs.

—————–
====================================================

Click here to Download the PDF Judgment.

Bombay HC:- Custody of minor child given to Father.

January 21, 2013 Leave a comment

Salient points

# Husband / father has retained custody of children though some of them are female children and ALL of them are minor

# Husband has been carefully escalating the matter thru various courts and finally won custody at Bombay HC too !!

# children are either neutral or silent

# Husband has appeared PARTY IN person and NOT by advocate even at the High court

 

================== judgement =================

 

Bombay HC judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.353 OF 2008

Mrs.Mary Cedric Pinto .. Petitioner versus

Mr.Cedric Francis Pinto & Anr. .. Respondents

Mr.N.P.Deshpande for the petitioner.

None for the 1st respondent.

Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the respondent No.2-State.

CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : 2nd July 2009.

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 10th September 2009.

JUDGMENT:

1. On 2nd July 2009 the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner were heard. The judgment was not delivered on that day as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent was not present. The judgment was reserved. The judgment could not be pronounced earlier as the file of the petition was misplaced.

2. The petitioner is the wife and the 1st respondent is the husband. An application was made by the petitioner under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) before the learned Magistrate praying for various reliefs. The dispute relates to custody of three minor children. Interim relief was granted by the learned Magistrate by order dated 21st November 2007 in exercise of powers under section 23 of the said Act by directing that the 1st respondent shall hand over temporary custody of the three minor children to the petitioner. The directions were given to the 1st respondent to desist from causing domestic violance as mentioned in the report of the Protection Officer. Under the said order an arrangement was made enabling the three minor children to stay with the 1st respondent father from 8.00 a.m of every Saturday till 9.00 a.m on the immediately following Sunday. An appeal was preferred by the 1st respondent. By the impunged order dated 19th December 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge modified the order of the learned Magistrate and directed that the husband and wife will be entitled to retain the custody of the minor children every alternate month. The petitioner and 1st respondent were directed to take proper physical and mental care of the children whenever the children would remain in their custody.

3. When the writ petition came up before this Court for admission on 15th September 2008, the petition was ordered to be placed in chamber. On 19th September 2008 in chamber this Court interviewed the three minor children.

Thereafter, the matter appeared before the Court on 24th September 2008.

The paragraphs 2 to 4 of the order passed on that day read thus:

“2. It must be stated here that on Friday, 19th September 2008 at 5.30 p.m the children were called to my chamber alongwith the petitioner and the 1st respondent. I had no occasion to talk to the three children. To enable me to talk to the children, I requested the parties and the advocates to wait outside the chamber. While leaving the chamber, the learned advocate holding for the advocate for the petitioner requested the Court to ensure that a cellphone is not kept with the eldest child for recording the conversation in the chamber. The first respondent categorically stated that there is no basis for such apprehension.

 3. The children were at pains to tell me that they desire that the parents should come together and they will be very happy if they are in position to stay with both the parties. Therefore, in chamber, a suggestion was given to the parents to explore the possibility of reconciliation, keeping in mind the desire expressed by the three children. 

4. I gather from Shri Deshpande, learned advocate for the petitioner that as of today, there is no possibility of reconciliation between the petitioner and the 1st respondent. “

4. On 27th April 2009 when the petition was called out, none appeared for the 1st respondent. The advocate for the petitioner was present. He stated that no progress has been made in the matter of settlement. Therefore, the petition was ordered to be fixed for final disposal.

5. The petitioner and 1st respondent married on 18th October 1989 under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act. On 27th December 1991 they again got married in church. The couple was blessed with three children. The first two are the daughters and third one is the son. The present ages of the children appear to be 16 yrs, 14 yrs and 12 yrs respectively.

6. As stated earlier, temporary custody of the minor children was granted by the learned Magistrate in favour of the petitioner. The order of temporary custody was disturbed by the Sessions Court by passing a peculiar order. The petitioner-wife and the 1st respondent husband were permitted to retain custody every alternate month. It, however, appears that after the order of the Sessions Court, the custody of the children has remained with the 1st respondent father.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no reason for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to disturb the order of temporary custody passed by the learned Magistrate. He submitted that the order of the learned Sessions Judge that custody of the children will be retained by the petitioner and 1st respondent every alternate month is perverse and is not in the interests of the minors. He submitted that out of the three minors two are daughters and the son is of tender age. He submitted that welfare of the minors require that their custody should be retained with the mother.

8. I have given careful consideration to the submissions. It is well settled law that while deciding an application for custody of minor children, the only paramount consideration is welfare of minor children and the legal rights of the parties or the parents are not relevant. The order of the learned Magistrate records that the minor children on their own sought audience of the learned Magistrate and in chamber when the learned Magistrate talked to the children, they expressed a desire to stay with the mother. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate passed an interim order directing that the custody of the minor children be handed over to the petitioner. However, he passed an order directing that at weekends the minor children will stay with the 1st respondent.

9. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has noted in the impugned order that he had taken interview of the minor children in his chamber and he had talked to the parties with a view to bring about settlement. He has recorded that the petitioner was not in a mood to even think of settlement.

10. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, he has noted that both the mother and father were claiming custody. He noted that the children want both the parents to stay together and they need love and affection of both, the mother and the father. He noted that the children expressed their desire to celebrate Christmas and New Year in the company of their parents. The relevant part of the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge reads thus: ” REASONS 6. The elder daughter Eleine is the studen of IX th standard. Cedrina and Edric are the students of Vth

 standard. Their welfare is of paramount consideration.
The children do not have any allegation against the
parents. Both the parties want to exercise their
parental authority to have custody of the children.
The children want both the parents and stay with them
together. They want ot celebrate Christmas and the New
Year in their company, which appear impossible,
because the respondent No.1 is not ready. It is in
this circumstances the appeal needs to be partly
allowed as the order passed by the learned Magistrate
needs some modification in the interest of the
children. Hence, the following order: ORDER

The appeal is partly allowed as under:-

1. The appellant shall give the custody of the three
children to the respondent No.1 today in the Court.

2. The respondent No.1 shall keep the children in
their custody till 19th January 2008. She shall give
the custody back to the appellant on 20th January 2008
at about 9 a.m in the office of Mahila Vikas Kendra
Pulgate, Pune and the appellant shall collect the
children therefrom.

3. Thereafter the appellant shall keep the children
in his custody till 19th February 2008 and he shall
deliver the custody of the children to the respondent
No.1 on 20th February 2008 at the same place and time
to enable the respondent No.1 to collect the children.

4. In this manner this cycle of one month shall go on
until further order.

5. The appellant and the respondent No.1 shall not
remove the children out of the municipal limits of the
Pune Cantonment and Pune Corporation without prior
permission of the learned Magistrate.”

11. It must be noted that even before this Court the three children were at pains to point out that they desire that their parents should stay together and they would be very happy if they get an opportunity to stay with both the parents. Therefore, on 19th September 2009 a suggestion was given by this Court to the parents to explore the possibility of reconciliation keeping in mind the desire expressed by the three children. The petition was adjourned thereafter from time to time. But the parties could not reconcile and come to a settlement. It is not possible at this stage to find out which of the two parties is not willing to settle the dispute. But it has to be observed that it would have been in the best interests of the minor children if the petitioner and the 1st respondent had patched up the differences and had agreed to reside under one roof only with a view to ensure that the minor children get company of both the parents. Both the parties should have given paramount importance to the wishes expressed by their children. Sadly, the petitioner and 1st respondent are not able to patch up the disputes. They could have even considered of residing under one roof atleast for few years till the children become major.

12. The three children are school going children. It must be stated here that the Sessions Court has passed a very peculiar order. The Sessions Court thought that it is in the interests of the minors that they remain in custody of their parents every alternate month. Such approach, to say the least, is shocking. The learned Sessions Judge has not at all considered the effect of this arrangement on the minors. The Act of disturbing custody of the minors after every one month will cause mental trauma to the minor children. The minor children have already suffered because of the attitude adopted by the parents of not settling the disputes atleast for the sake of children. In a case where there is a dispute between the parents over the custody of minor children, the custody has to be retained with one of the parents with visitation rights and/or right to have temporary custody for few days reserved in favour of the other parent. The arrangement which is made by the impugned order is certainly not in the interests of the minors and by such arrangement, the minors are bound to suffer. Therefore, the order impugned which is certainly not consistent with the welfare of the minors, will have to be quashed and set aside. Now the question which remains is what should be the interim arrangement during the pendency of the main application under section 12 of the said Act. For whatever reasons, for a substantially long time, the custody of the minors has remained with the 1st respondent father. Now it will not be in the interests of the minors to disturb the custody of the father till the main application is heard. The main application under section 12 of the said Act will have to be heard and disposed of expeditiously. However, the petitioner will have to be given right to meet her minor children and to remain in their company for sufficiently long time at periodical intervals. Even the minor children will need the company of their mother. However, interim arrangement will have to be worked out by the parties before the learned Magistrate as the 1st respondent has not chosen to appear before this Court at the time of final hearing.

13. Hence, I pass the following order:

: O R D E R :

(a) The impugned order dated 19th December 2007 is quashed and set aside.

(b) Considering the events which have transpired, till the disposal of the application under section 12 of the said Act, the custody of the minor children of the 1st respondent husband shall not be disturbed unless there are subsequent events warranting change in custody.

(c) The petitioner will be entitled to meet the minor children at regular intervals and to remain in their company for sufficiently long time. The learned Magistrate will pass a proper order in that behalf after hearing both the parties.

(d) The main application under section 12 of the said Act shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today.

(e) All contentions of the parties in the main application are expressly kept open.

(f) The writ petition is disposed of in above terms.

(A.S.OKA,J)

 

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/88924056/

Mother asked to Quit Job for upbringing the Child–Bombay High Court

In one of its Judgments, Bombay High Court’s Justice Roshan Dalvi asked the mother to quit her job and stay with her child to get the custody. The Mother is not residing with the child, as the child is in Sangli with her parents. The mother is in Lonavala for Job. Whereas the father of the child resides only 35kms from the parental house of the child’s mother. In these circumstances, if the custody is given to the mother who stays in Lonavala then the father would not get access comfortably. But if she gives undertaking that she will quit the job only then the custody would be preferable as the Father also will access the child comfortably.
pls find below the Full Judgement.

1 WP.4086.2012.sxw
mnm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4086 OF 2012

Savita Sachin Patil …Petitioner
Vs.
Sachin Suresh Patil …Respondent
Mr. Haribhau Deshinge i/b. Mr. Vijay Killedar,
Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. Preeti B. Walimbe, Advocate for the Respondent
CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATED : 18TH JULY, 2012
P.C. :

1. The Petitioner wife has challenged the order of District Judge, IV, Sangli dated 10th February 2012, which was passed upon her application for interim custody of her minor child Nikhil. The parties have been married since 2007. The child was born in 2008. The parties separated since 2010. A complaint under Section 498A came to be filed on 9th April 2010. The wife had left the matrimonial home with the child and was living with her parents in their village. She has claimed that since January 2011 the husband had forcibly taken the child. The wife claims that thereafter the husband represented
to her that the child should stay with him for some days and has
thereafter kept custody of the child with him after she delivered
the child to him. The wife accepted the plea of the husband to
avoid further controversy, but whenever she called upon him to
deliver back the child, he on some pretext or the other failed to
comply.

2. The father has applied for the custody of the child in the trial Court. This itself shows that the father did not have custody prior to the application. The child has remained with the father pending the application.

3. The mother took out the application for interim custody of the child on 20th August 2011. In the impugned order the learned Judge has not considered the merits of the matter. He has neither accepted, nor rejected her application on the ground of delay of 8 months. He has found no urgency to deal with the application for interim custody filed by the mother of the child. He has observed that the application would be heard along with the main petition and the custody of the minor son Nikhil would be continued to be with the father till the decision is taken on merits.

4. The Counsel on behalf of the Respondent has contended that the writ petition does not lie because an appeal is maintainable under Section 43 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. That would be after the interim custody application is either accepted or rejected. Counsel has argued that the fact that the custody of the minor child is to be continued with the husband, shows the order of rejection.

5. I find that the contention is incorrect in view of the
observation of the learned Judge in the impugned order that the
application would be decided with the main Petition. Consequently, only a writ petition would be maintainable.

6. It is contended in the writ petition that the mother does not live with her own parents at her parental home. She lives separately in Lonawala where she has procured an employment. That aspect is admitted by the mother of the child. However, the mother claims that she is prepared to give up her job and take custody of the child by residing with her parents in her parental home. She has also stated to Court that in the alternative, her mother is prepared to live with her in Lonawala.

7. Considering an application of custody of a child of 4 years by the mother is a fragile matter. The Court requires to consider such an application with the child’s interest at the tender age. The urgency or lack of urgency in an application upon any delay may be rightly considered by any Civil Court or even a Family Court in a dispute between the parties themselves who are adults. The order of access applied for by the mother is not granted by the Court upon considering the rights of the mother.

It is granted upon considering the rights as well as the welfare of
the child to have access to his own mother and to be in custody
of the mother. A child of such tender years is even under the
statutory provision contained in Section 6 of the Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956 required to be ordinarily given to the mother. Consequently, urgency is implicit in an application
filed by a mother, no matter whatever the previous circumstances.

8. In this case the father has contended that the mother left
the child with her own parents and has gone to another village.
The allegations of adultery are also made. The father has
contended that thereafter the parents of his wife themselves left
the child with him. It may be mentioned that the contention of
the mother stands to reason and would have to be accepted.
Considering the fact that the main Petition itself has been filed
on 3rd January 2011, the contention of the Respondent that after
filing the petition for custody the custody voluntarily came to
him is rather difficult to accept.

9. Under these circumstances I considered it appropriate to meet the child as well as the father, mother and the grandfathers of the child. The maternal grandfather has not been able to attend as he is from Sangli. The father as well as the mother have attended before the Court. The father has also brought with him the paternal grandparents of the child as also the child. The child is of too tender an age to be interviewed. The child has been allowed to meet his mother during the course of the afternoon session of this Court. Over a period of time the child has gone to the mother, played with the mother and has been comfortable with the mother despite a long lapse of 1½ years during which the child was deprived of the love or care of the mother for whatever reasons.

10. The mother of the child who is present in Court undertakes
to the Court that she will leave her employment in Lonawala and go to her parental residence to be with the child after she gets the interim custody claimed by her. The mother also states that in the alternative her own mother will come to live with her in Lonawala so that she can continue her employment.

11. It is seen that the father lives near Sangli at the distance
of only 35 Kms from the parental home of the mother. If the mother is to be given custody of the child, the father must obtain access comfortably. If the Petitioner mother lives in Lonawala that would not be possible. Hence, the mother cannot be allowed to live in Lonawala and claim even interim custody of the child. She would then only be entitled to access at the convenience of the parties and the child. Under these circumstances, the mother gives an undertaking to the Court that she would leave her employment and go to her parental
residence after she gets interim custody.

12. Her undertaking is accepted. The mother shall submit her
resignation and show the Court that fact. The mother shall also
file a written undertaking in the above terms.

13. S.O to 24th July 2012 in Chambers at 2.30 p.m. The father shall bring the child to Court on the next date of hearing.

(MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)

http://bombayhighcourt.nic.in/data/civil/2012/WP1139012180712.pdf

Categories: Child Custody Tags:

Supreme Court Of India decides the custody of Two children to go to the Father.

NON- REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4308 OF 2012

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13254 of 2011)

Shaleen Kabra Appellant
Vs.
Shiwani Kabra Respondent
With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4309 OF 2012
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 15819 of 2011)
JUDGMENT
ANIL R. DAVE, J

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Delhi dated the 21st of February, 2011 in CM(M) 1018 of 2010, these appeals have
been filed by the parties before the High Court, who are parents of two children, whose custody is the subject matter of these appeals.

3. As the impugned order is challenged in both these appeals, both the appeals were heard together and they are being decided by this
common order. For the sake of convenience, parties to the litigation
have been referred to hereinbelow as arrayed in Civil Appeal arising
out of Special Leave petition No. 13254 of 2011.

4. The marriage of the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on
14.02.1994. From the wedlock, two sons were born, who are
approximately 15 and 9 years old. The appellant and the respondent
have been living separately since 10.04.2007, and have been involved
in various litigations since then, including a petition for divorce under Section 13(1)(i) & 1A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 filed by the appellant-father and also proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, initiated by the respondent mother.
The appellant, who is an IAS officer, stationed at Jammu at present, had sought certain modifications in the arrangement of custody of the children, and also permission to take transfer certificates of the children from Delhi and complete their admission in a school in Jammu, and in this respect, moved applications dated 25.05.2010 and 22.06.2010 before the Additional District Judge. The Learned Additional District Judge, vide order dated 19.07.2010 was pleased to allow the applications moved by the appellant-father.

5. Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned judgment delivered by the
Trial Court, the respondent preferred CM(M) No. 1018 of 2010 before
the High Court. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the High Court
partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent whereby the
respondent was permitted to have custody of the younger son, whereas
the appellant was to have custody of the elder son.

6. While coming to the above conclusion, the High Court has cited
various decisions in support of the contention that while deciding the issue about custody of children in a matrimonial dispute, the
paramount consideration is that of welfare of the child. Thereafter, on the basis of interaction with the children in the Chambers, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the elder son had a strong desire to stay with the appellant-father. He also found that there was also an admission by the respondent-mother that she would not be able to adequately handle the educational needs of the elder son without tutors. For the aforestated reasons, the learned Single Judge ordered that custody of the elder son should remain with the appellant-father.

7. In the case of the younger son, the learned Single Judge observed that he, being of a very tender age, was incapable of forming a definite preference as to with whom he wanted to stay. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge ordered that the custody of the younger son should be given to the respondent-mother, as she would be in a better position to understand the needs of such a young child. On this basis, the custody of the younger son was directed to remain with the respondent.

8. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding to the effect that both the children appeared to be very happy in the company of each other as there was a strong bonding between them.

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, both the parties have come
before this Court vide the present appeals.

10.We heard the learned counsel for the parties, and also spoke to the children at length.

11. The counsel appearing for the appellant-father, at the outset, submitted that the High Court ought not to have directed separation of two children, in view of the close relationship between them and he further submitted that there could be disastrous effect of such a separation on them. Thereafter, the learned counsel made further submissions about the poor academic performance of the younger son while in the custody of the respondent-mother, and also regarding the alleged adulterous conduct of the respondent-mother, which was said to have a severe adverse effect on the children. The learned counsel further added that the father of the appellant, i.e. grand father of the children, is staying with the appellant and he, being a very educated person, would be in a position to take good care of the children. On these grounds inter alia, the learned counsel argued that both the children ought not to have been separated, and that custody ought to have been granted to the appellant-father.

12.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent mother submitted that looking to the service condition and status of the appellant-father, occupying a stressful position in the state of Jammu & Kashmir, he would not have sufficient time to give adequate attention to the children and if custody of the children is given to him, the children would be taken care of only by servants and that would not be in the interest of the children. Further, the learned counsel argued that as the children were already in a very good school in Delhi, it would not be just and proper to move them to another school in Jammu & Kashmir which might be of an inferior standard. For the aforestated reasons, the learned counsel argued that custody of even the elder son ought to have been granted to the respondent-mother.

13.On hearing the learned counsel and also upon talking at length with the children, we find force in the arguments of the counsel for the appellant-father.

14.Upon speaking to the children personally, we also found that they are indeed very much attached to each other. This fact was also noted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in the impugned judgment, and is also admitted by both the parties in their respective written submissions. Looking to the overall peculiar circumstances of the case, it is our view that the welfare of both the children would be best served if they remain together. In our view it would not be just and proper to separate both brothers, who are admittedly very close to each other.

15.If we are of the view that both the brothers should not be separated and should be kept together, the question would be as to who should be given custody of the children.

16.We are of the view that the children should be with the appellant father. The respondent-mother is not in a position to look after the
educational need of the elder son and as we do not desire to separate
both the brothers, in our opinion, looking to the peculiar facts of the case, it would be in the interest of the children that they stay with the appellant-father.

17.We are sure that the appellant- father, who is a member of Indian
Administrative Service and is a well groomed person, with the help of
his father, who was also a professor, will be able to take very good
care of the children. Their education would not be adversely affected
even in Jammu and Kashmir as it would be possible for the appellant father to get them educated in a good school in Jammu. We do not
believe that the children would remain in company of servants as
alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-mother.
Father of the appellant i.e. the grandfather of the children would also be in a position to look after the children and infuse good cultural values into them. Normally, grandparents can spare more time with their grand children and especially company of well educated
grandparents would not only help the children in their studies but
would also help them to imbibe cultural and moral values and good
manners.

18.So as to see that the respondent-mother is also not kept away from the children, she shall have a right to visit the children atleast once in a month. The appellant –father shall make arrangements for A.C. First Class railway ticket for the respondent-mother or shall pay the railway fare to her so as to visit the children once in a month at a weekend and the appellant-father shall also make arrangements for stay of the respondent-mother either at his own residence, if the respondent mother agrees to that, otherwise the appellant-father shall make arrangements for suitable accommodation for the respondent-mother when she comes to Jammu to visit the children.

19.During the period of vacation exceeding two weeks, the appellant father shall send the children to Delhi so that the children can stay
with the respondent-mother atleast for three days. We are sure that the appellant and the respondent shall determine the modalities as to
during which portion of the vacation, the children should visit the
respondent-mother as almost both the parents are interested in having
the company of the children.

20. For the aforestated reasons and looking to the peculiar facts of the case, we quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court and restore the order of the trial court, subject to modification of conditions-arrangements, recorded hereinabove. The custody of both the children shall be given to the appellant-father before 15th May,2012 and the arrangements with regard to visit of the children etc. shall take effect from 1st June, 2012, the respondent-mother shall do the needful to send the younger son to the residence of the appellant father before 15th May, 2012.

21.The appeals are accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.

…………………………J
(D.K. JAIN)
…………………………J
(ANIL R. DAVE)
NEW DELHI
May 8 , 2012

Categories: Child Custody Tags:

Bombay HC: Kids cannot be deprived of either parent.

The judges said they were familiar with tactics used by couples to deprive either of access to child. “We know all the tricks that are used. You first comply with the order and give him access and then move this court,” Justice Kathawalla added.

Mumbai: Children cannot be deprived of the company of either parent, said Bombay High Court on Monday while hearing wife’s plea to stay a Family Court’s order allowing her husband to take their son for summer holidays.
A vacation division bench of Justice S J Kathawalla and Justice P D Kode were hearing an appeal filed by Priya Kulkarni challenging the family court’s May 9, 2012 order allowing her husband Suhas to take their son Rahul (6) for holidays between May 21- June 4, 2012. The judge also said noted that during interview Rahul expressed eagerness to spend time with his father. “The experience of the warring couples may be bad but it does not mean that the child should remain without the love and affection of the father,” the judge said.
The couple married in May 2005. Their son was born a year later. Priya left the house in 2009 and filed cases under Sections 498 A (dowry) and 326 (causing grievous hurt) of Indian Penal Code with the police alleging that he beat her badly. She then moved the Pune FC for maintenance. In April 2009, Suhas was directed to pay Rs 11,000 jointly to her and Rahul.
Pointing out that Suhas has not complied with the maintenance order, Priya’s advocate F A Pareira argued that Suhas is a criminal and had beaten her badly causing contusion on the frontal lobe of the head. He has criminal record and unless cleared of these cases he should not be allowed access to the child,” said Pareira. He also said the court has orally stayed its order till May 30, 2012.
“How do you call him a hardcore criminal on the basis of these cases?” asked Justice Kathawalla. The judges also noted that no notice was served to Suhas to enable him to appear before HC. “You’ll have to give access to the father. Children cannot be deprived of the company of either parent. As a father why should he not have access to the child?” asked Justice Kathawalla.
The judges said they were familiar with tactics used by couples to deprive either of access to child. “We know all the tricks that are used. You first comply with the order and give him access and then move this court,” Justice Kathawalla added.
The judges said they find nothing wrong with the FC’s order. They also warned that if there is no stay from the FC as claimed by Pareira, “we shall give access to the father for an entire one month.” They directed Priya to hand Rahul to Suhas at the FC on Tuesday. They posted the matter for hearing on Wednesday.
( N a m e s h ave b e e n
c h a n g e d t o p r o t e c t i d e n t i t y )

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.