Research Results Based on the Query


ACT
ARG
SCJ
HCJ

Query: The husband is not allowed to meet his daughter after the divorce, even though the court has passed a visitation order for him to meet the daughter once a week for one hour. My client is the husband.

Revised Query: The husband is not allowed to meet his daughter after the divorce, even though the court has issued a visitation order for him to see the daughter once a week for one hour. My client is the husband.



Likely Arguments


Potential Arguments by Opposing Counsel

1. Child's Well-being: Opposing counsel may argue that the wife's decision to deny visitation is based on concerns for the child's well-being, citing instances where the child may have expressed discomfort or reluctance to meet the husband.

2. Allegations of Misconduct: Opposing counsel may raise allegations of misconduct or behavior on the part of the husband that could potentially harm the child's emotional or physical safety, thus justifying the denial of visitation.

3. Change in Circumstances: Opposing counsel may argue that there have been significant changes in circumstances since the issuance of the visitation order, warranting a reassessment of the visitation schedule or restrictions on the husband's access.

4. Non-compliance with Conditions: Opposing counsel may claim that the husband has not complied with certain conditions or requirements set forth in the visitation order, thereby justifying the wife's decision to deny visitation.

Counterarguments and Legal Responses

1. Child's Well-being:
- Counterargument: The best interests of the child are paramount, and regular contact with both parents is generally considered beneficial for the child's overall development and emotional well-being.
- Legal Response: Section 13 of The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, emphasizes the welfare of the minor as the primary consideration in matters of guardianship, highlighting the importance of maintaining relationships with both parents unless proven detrimental to the child.

2. Allegations of Misconduct:
- Counterargument: Allegations of misconduct should be substantiated with evidence and brought before the court for proper adjudication rather than being used as a basis to unilaterally deny visitation rights.
- Legal Response: The court is the appropriate forum to address concerns of misconduct, and any allegations should be dealt with through due process, ensuring that the child's best interests are protected while upholding the husband's rights as a parent.

3. Change in Circumstances:
- Counterargument: Changes in circumstances should be brought to the court's attention for a possible modification of the visitation order rather than unilaterally denying visitation without legal recourse.
- Legal Response: Section 25 of The Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, allows for the court to modify custody and visitation orders based on changed circumstances, ensuring that any adjustments are made through proper legal channels.

4. Non-compliance with Conditions:
- Counterargument: If there are specific conditions or requirements in the visitation order that the husband has allegedly not met, the appropriate course of action is to address these issues through legal means rather than outright denial of visitation.
- Legal Response: The court can enforce compliance with visitation orders through coercive measures under Section 125(3) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ensuring that both parties adhere to the terms of the court order.

Optimal Defense Strategy

1. File Contempt Petition: Given the wife's persistent denial of visitation despite the court order, filing a contempt petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, would be a strong legal strategy to compel compliance and seek appropriate remedies for the violation.

2. Seek Modification of Order: If there are genuine concerns or changes in circumstances that warrant a modification of the visitation schedule, proactively approaching the court to address these issues and seek a revised order would demonstrate willingness to cooperate while upholding the husband's rights.

3. Engage in Mediation: Considering the sensitive nature of the dispute, exploring mediation or counseling services to facilitate communication and resolve underlying conflicts between the parties could be beneficial in reaching an amicable resolution while prioritizing the child's well-being.

By adopting a proactive approach, leveraging legal remedies available under Indian laws, and emphasizing the importance of upholding court orders and parental rights, the optimal defense strategy would focus on ensuring the husband's access to his daughter in a manner that safeguards the child's best interests and promotes a harmonious co-parenting relationship.


Relevant Supreme Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Supreme Court of India
Bimlendu Kumar Chatterjeeappellant vs Dipa Chatterjee & Ors.Respondents
Honourable Judges D.P. Mohapatra, Shivaraj V. Patil
Date of Judgment: 19 Sep 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 57.5
   
   
   

A liberty has already been given to the appellant by the order impugned to see his daughter at least once in a week and in view of the direction the appellant may see his daughter once in a week and the respondent no.1 must make her daughter available to the appellant in terms of the order impugned. For the reasons aforementioned we refrain ourselves from passing any further order in the matter. Thereafter in the order passed on 10th August, 1998 in MJC No.783 of 1997 (R) filed in LPA No.358/97 (R) for initiation of a contempt proceeding against respondent no.1 for violating the order dated 25th November, 1997 of the Court, a Division Bench passed the following order : The petitioner will have the liberty to visit the house of Opp.Party NO.1 on every Sunday in the afternoon between 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. and if he does so, the Opp. Party No.1 will make arrangement to enable him to meet daughter and allow him to remain with her for a reasonable time. This order is being passed so as to avoid future controversy. LPA No.358/97 (R) was decided by the judgment rendered by a Division Bench on 4th May, 2000. The appeal was allowed and that part of the order by which the learned single Judge had directed that the child will remain with the mother with liberty to the father to go and see the child at least once a week, was set aside. Thereafter, it appears that the respondent no.1 having failed to restore custody of the child to him, the appellant filed an application before the High Court seeking implementation of the order of the Family Court, Dhanbad giving custody of the child to him. Considering the said application, another Division Bench passed the order dated 6th November, 2000, as quoted earlier. The said order is under challenge in this appeal. As noted earlier, in the order under challenge, the High Court reiterated the order passed on 25th November, 1997 in LPA No.358/97 (R) overlooking the position that the said order which was an interim order passed in the appeal was not subsisting after disposal of the appeal by the judgment dated 4th May, 2000. Further, the Division Bench had also overlooked the position that the LPA itself having been disposed of, no further order reviving the interim order passed during the pendency of the said appeal could be passed in the disposed of case.

Result 2
Supreme Court of India
Ruchi Majoo vs Sanjeev Majoo
Honourable Judges T.S. Thakur, V.S. Sirpurkar
Date of Judgment: 13 May 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
Relevancy Score: 56.37
   
   
   

Some of these apprehensions may not be entirely out of place but that does not mean that the courts below could not grant redress against the same. One of these apprehensions is that the respondent may be involved in a false case under Section 498A & 406 of the IPC or provisions like the Prohibition of Dowry Act 1961. A case FIR No.97 dated 7.7.2009 has, in fact, been registered against the respondent, which has been quashed by the High Court by its order dated 22nd September, 2010 passed in Crl. M.C. No.3329 of 2009. We have by our order of even date dismissed an appeal against the said order, which must effectively give a quietus to that controversy, and allay the apprehension of the respondent. Not only that we are inclined to issue further directions to ensure that the respondent does not have any legal or other impediment in exercising his visitation rights. The question then is what should the visitation rights be and how should the same be exercised. But before we examine that aspect, we may advert to the need for the visitation rights of the father to be recognised in the peculiar circumstances of this case. From what we gathered in the course of an interactive session with the minor, we concluded that the minor has been thoroughly antagonized against the respondent father. He held him responsible for his inability to travel to Malaysia, with his grandparents because if he does so, both the mother and her parents will be arrested on the charge of abduction of the minor. He also held the respondent responsible for his grandparent's skin problems and other worries. He wanted to stay only in India and wanted to be left alone by the respondent. He was reluctantly agreeable to meeting and associating with the respondent provided the respondent has the red corner notice withdrawn so that he and his grandparents can travel abroad. For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated. What the appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despire for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father's care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life. Nor can the role of the father in his upbringing and grooming to face the realities of life be undermined. It is in that view important for the child's healthy growth that we grant to the father visitation rights; that will enable the two to stay in touch and share moments of joy, learning and happiness with each other. Since the respondent is living in another continent such contact cannot be for obvious reasons as frequent as it may have been if they were in the same city.

Result 3
Supreme Court of India
Sheila B. Das vs P.R. Sugasree
Honourable Judges B.P. Singh, Altamas Kabir
Date of Judgment: 17 Feb 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 56.34
   
   
   

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 renumbered 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.

Result 4
Supreme Court of India
Kumar V.Jahgirdar vs Chetana K.Ramatheertha
Honourable Judges D.P. Mohapatra, Shivaraj V. Patil
Date of Judgment: 18 Apr 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 55.33
   
   
   

In event he had remarried, there could not have been any guarantee that the child could have been looked after well by the second wife. In paragraph 14, the learned Judge expressed the opinion that the condition 8a (quoted earlier) is not a healthy condition as it has lost site of the fact that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The learned Judge has expressed his views by saying that Merely there is a divorce and merely she has remarried again does not mean that she can afford to ill-treat her child. In paragraph 17 of the order, the High Court observed: the petitioner is although a divorcee, she is not doing any work, she has got all the time in the world to attend to the needs of the girl. We do not intend to consider in-depth the merits of the case for the reason that both the parties have approached the Family Court with petitions seeking custody of the minor child. Suffice it to say that the High Court does not appear to have considered the welfare of the minor child in its proper perspective. Therefore, the order and the directions issued by the High Court should not influence the Family Court while deciding the question of custody of the child. We dispose of this appeal by passing the following orders: 1. Custody of the minor child Aaruni will remain with the mother (respondent herein) till disposal of the petitions filed by the parties for custody of the child; 2. The father of the child, appellant herein, will have the right to visit his daughter or take her out between 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday every week. He may also keep the child with him overnight on a Saturday once a month with prior intimation to the mother of the child. 3. Till the disposal of the petitions filed for the custody of the child by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the mother will not take the child out of the country. If she is to go abroad at any time she will leave the child in custody of the father during her absence.

Result 5
Supreme Court of India
Yashita Sahu vs The State Of Rajasthan
Honourable Judges Deepak Gupta, Aniruddha Bose
Date of Judgment: 20 Jan 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 53.97
   
   
   

Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. 20. The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents. 21. Normally, if the parents are living in the same town or area, the spouse who has not been granted custody is given visitation rights over weekends only. In case the spouses are living at a distance from each other, it may not be feasible or in the interest of the child to create impediments in the education of the child by frequent breaks and, in such cases the visitation rights must be given over long weekends, breaks, and holidays. In cases like the present one where the parents are in two different continents effort should be made to give maximum visitation rights to the parent who is denied custody. 22. In addition to ‘Visitation Rights’, ‘Contact rights’ are also important for development of the child specially in cases where both parents live in different states or countries. The concept of contact rights in the modern age would be contact by telephone, e­mail or in fact, we feel the best system of contact, if available between the parties should be video calling. With the increasing availability of internet, video calling is now very common and courts dealing with the issue of custody of children must ensure that the parent who is denied custody of the child should be able to talk to her/his child as often as possible. Unless there are special circumstances to take a different view, the parent who is denied custody of the child should have the right to talk to his/her child for 5­10 minutes everyday. This will help in maintaining and improving the bond between the child and the parent who is denied custody. If that bond is maintained the child will have no difficulty in moving from one home to another during vacations or holidays. The purpose of this is, if we cannot provide one happy home with two parents to the child then let the child have the benefit of two happy homes with one parent each.

Result 6
Supreme Court of India
Deepti Bhandari vs Nitin Bhandari & Anr
Honourable Judges J. Chelameswar, Altamas Kabir
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 53.75
   
   
   

5. The Respondent No.1 filed Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2009 on 25th August, 2009 against the aforesaid order dated 2nd June, 2009, before the Court of Upper District Judge (Fast Track) No.9, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which dismissed the same. 6. On 18th September, 2009, the Respondent No.1 filed a Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1977 of 2009) for quashing of the charge-sheet in FIR No.7 of 2009 and further proceedings before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, No.15, Jaipur City, Jaipur, were stayed therein. On 7th October, 2009, the Respondent No.1 filed another Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2139 of 2009) for quashing of Criminal Legal Case No.13 of 2009 filed by the Petitioner under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005. The High Court also stayed the said proceedings pending before the Upper Civil Judge (A,B) and Judicial Magistrate, Serial No.18, Jaipur City, Jaipur. 7. On 22nd January, 2010, when both the matters came up before the High Court for consideration, the High Court directed the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1 to settle their disputes and to apply for divorce by mutual consent within 15 days. The order was passed in the presence of both the parties. While giving the aforesaid directions, the High Court also passed orders allowing visitation rights to the Respondent No.1, husband, in respect of the minor child. 8. On 17th February, 2010, the Respondent No.1 filed S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1 of 2010 before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court against the order dated 25th August, 2009 passed in Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2009 dismissing his application for visitation rights. The Respondent NO.1 also filed Application No.3051 of 2010 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1977 of 2009 praying for similar visitation rights. On 8th April, 2010, the said application for visitation rights was allowed and the Petitioner was directed to arrange for the meeting of the Respondent No.1 with the Petitioner and their minor daughter at the office of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 on every Saturday between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. 9. This is the genesis of the problem which is the subject matter of the present Special Leave Petition. 10. According to the Petitioner, on 14th April, 2010, the Petitioner's brother got admission with I.I.P.M. in Delhi, which required him to shift to Delhi for his higher education and the Petitioner also decided to come to Delhi to establish herself professionally to be able to maintain herself and her minor daughter. According to the Petitioner, since then she has been residing in Delhi and the order directing visitation rights to the Respondent No.1 to meet the minor child at Jaipur in the office of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 became extremely difficult for her.

Result 7
Supreme Court of India
Vikram Vir Vohra vs Shalini Bhalla
Honourable Judges Asok Kumar Ganguly, G.S.Singhvi
Date of Judgment: 25 Mar 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 53.58
   
   
   

5. Thereafter the respondent-wife filed applications dated 07.11.06 and 9.05.08 and the appellant-husband also filed applications dated 17.11.07 and 16.02.09 under Section 26 of the Act seeking modification of those terms and conditions about the custody of the child. 6. The respondent was basing her claim on the fact that she wanted to take the child with her to Australia where she was employed for gain with a request to revoke the visitation rights granted to the appellant for meeting the child. This she felt will be conducive to the paramount interest and welfare of the child. The appellant on the other hand sought permanent custody of the child under the changed circumstances alleging that it is not in the interest of the child to leave India permanently. 7. The Trial Court vide its order dated 06.04.09 took notice of the fact that in the joint petition of divorce, parties voluntarily agreed that the custody of the child shall remain with the mother and father shall have only visiting rights, in the manner indicated in the mutual divorce decree. The Court modified the terms and conditions of the custody and visitation rights of the appellant about the minor child. By its order the Trial Court had allowed the respondent to take the child with her to Australia but also directed her to bring the child back to India for allowing the father visitation rights twice in a year i.e. for two terms - between 18th of December to 26th of January and then from 26th of June to 11th of July. 8. Being aggrieved by that order of the Trial Court, the appellant appealed to the High Court. It was argued by the appellant since no decree was passed by the Court while granting mutual divorce, an application under Section 26 of the Act does not lie and in the absence of specific provision in the decree regarding the custody and visitation rights of the child, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition afresh after passing of the decree. 9. The High Court took into consideration the provisions of Section 26 of the Act and was of the view that the aforesaid provision is intended to enable the Court to pass suitable orders from time to time to protect the interest of minor children. However, the High Court held that after the final order is passed in original petition of divorce for the custody of the minor child, the other party cannot file any number of fresh petitions ignoring the earlier order passed by the Court. 10. The Court took into consideration that even if the terms and conditions regarding the custody and visitation rights of the child are not specifically contained in the decree, they do form part of the petition seeking divorce by mutual consent. It was of the view that absence of the terms and conditions in the decree does not disentitle the respondent to file an application under Section 26 of the Act seeking revocation of the visitation rights of the appellant.

Result 8
Supreme Court of India
Gaytri Bajaj vs Jiten Bhalla
Honourable Judges J. Chelameswar, P. Sathasivam
Date of Judgment: 16 Dec 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 52.69
   
   
   

6) In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we feel that if the children are forcibly taken away from the father and handed over to the mother, undoubtedly, it will affect their mental condition and it will not be desirable in the interest of their betterment and studies. In such a situation, the better course would be that the mother should first be allowed to make initial contact with the children, build up relationship with them and gradually restore her position as their mother. 7) In a matter relating to the custody of children the first and the paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the child and not the rights of the parents under a statute. Even the statues, namely, the Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 make it clear that the welfare of the child is a predominant consideration. In a matter of this nature, particularly, when father and mother fighting their case without reference to the welfare of the child, a heavy duty is cast upon the Court to exercise its discretion judiciously bearing in mind the welfare of the child as paramount consideration. 8) In the relevant facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that the interest and welfare of the children will be best served if they continue to be in the custody of the father. In our opinion, at present, it is not desirable to disturb the custody with the father. However, we feel that ends of justice would be met by providing visitation rights to the mother. In fact, during the hearing on 12.12.2011, Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-wife represented that if such visitation rights, namely, visiting her children once in a fortnight is ordered that would satisfy the petitioner-wife. Learned senior counsel also represented that if the said method materializes, the petitioner-wife is willing to withdraw all civil and criminal cases filed against the respondent-husband which are pending in various courts. 9) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the respondent-husband made it clear that this Court is free to pass appropriate interim arrangement if the same is feasible and in the interest of the children. Since both are residing at Delhi, it is desirable to pass appropriate direction for the meeting of the petitioner-wife either in the house of the respondent-husband or in a common place like Mediation Centre of this Court or the High Court. 10) We, accordingly, make 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 Centre at 10 a.m. on Saturday of every fortnight and hand over both 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.

Result 9
Supreme Court of India
Dsg vs Akg
Honourable Judges Krishna Murari, Indu Malhotra, Uday Umesh Lalit
Date of Judgment: 16 Dec 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 52.07
   
   
   

The Family Court further directed that the child would remain in the custody of the mother from Saturday (after school hours) till Monday 7 p.m., and with the father from Monday 7 p.m. till Saturday morning. 11. Pursuant to the Order dated 28.07.2018, Dr. Uzma Perveen held four counselling sessions with the child on 31.07.2018, 07.08.2018, 14.08.2018 and 05.09.2018, and submitted her Report dated 14.09.2018 before the Family Court. The Counsellor after observing the behavior and conduct of the mother, opined that the mother showed symptoms of “Paranoid Schizophrenia”, which required immediate assessment and proper treatment, keeping in mind the welfare of the child. If the mother’s condition remained untreated, it would make the child vulnerable, and would have a lasting psychological impact on the child. 12. The Petitioner – mother filed a Review Petition before the Family Court, Tis Hazari seeking Review of Order dated 28.07.2018. The Family Court vide Order dated 16.11.2018 dismissed the Review Petition. The Court referred to the reports of the three Counsellors, and held that the child has expressed her unequivocal desire to live only with the father. She denied the allegations of sexual abuse by the father. The Court held that the child seemed to be very happy in the presence of the father, and that there shall be no change in the interim custody of the minor. 13. The Petitioner – mother challenged the Order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Family Court before the High Court in MAT. APP (F.C.) 312/2018. 14. During the pendency of the Appeal before the High Court, the Petitioner – mother filed an Application u/S. 151 CPC before the Family Court seeking custody of the minor daughter during the vacations for 15 days. 15. The Family Court vide Order dated 27.02.2019 granted custody of the daughter to the Petitioner – mother from 28.02.2019 to 10.03.2019 for vacations. The Petitioner – mother was directed to make a video call to the father every evening during this period. The custody of the child was to be handed over to the Respondent – father on 11.03.2019. 16. On 10.03.2019, the Petitioner – wife sent a text message to the Respondent – husband that she was in Goa with the minor daughter, and would return only on 15.03.2019. 17. On 14.03.2019, the Respondent – father filed an Application u/S. 12 and 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act r.w. S.151 CPC for contempt of the Orders dated 16.11.2018 and 27.02.2019 against the Petitioner – mother before the Family Court, since the mother had refused to return the custody of the child. The Family Court took cognizance of non­compliance of Orders by the Petitioner – mother, and vide Order dated 18.04.2019 directed the SHO, PS Rajouri Garden to locate the whereabouts of the minor daughter, and produce her before the Court.

Result 10
Supreme Court of India
Ajaya vs Sanjaya Golecha
Honourable Judges G.S. Singhvi, B.N. Agrawal
Date of Judgment: 07 Jan 2009
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 52.06
   
   
   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION [CIVIL] NO.913 OF 2005 Ajaya ...Petitioner(s) Versus Sanjay Golecha ...Respondent(s) With Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos.459 of 2005 and 70 of 2007 O R D E R Transfer Petition (C) No.913 of 2005: Heard learned counsel for the parties. A joint petition of compromise has been filed by the parties wherein they have agreed to suffer a mutual consent divorce decree and have made following prayers: "(a) Accept the compromise entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. (b) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent and pass the decree to that effect. (c) (i) That both the parties agreed that the custody of the child, Gitika, born out of their wedlock may be given to the petitioner, i.e., the mother and agreed that Gitika will stay with the petitioner and that the petitioner will not part with the custody of Gitika to any of her relatives for her brought up. In case the petitioner is unable to maintain Gitika by herself, then the custody of Gitika would be given to respondent. ....2/- -2- (ii) The respondent will have visiting rights in terms of para 4(iii). (d) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly quash all the proceedings in the cases pendi9ng before- (i) Ld. Special Judge, Family Court, Indore (M.P.) in H.M.A. No.280/2004 pending before the court of Special Judge, Family Court, Indore (M.P.) and (ii) M.J.C. No.1157/2002 pending before the Ld. Family Court, Indore (M.P.); and (iii) Criminal Appeal No.456/2007 presently pending before Xth Additional Session Judge, Indore (M.P.) against the order passed by the court of III Additional Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Indore (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.2210/2005." Para 4(iii) referred to in prayer '(c)(ii)' reads as follows: "That the respondent will have a visiting right to his daughter Gitika. The respondent and his family members (blood relation) together with the respondent will have a right to visit to the daughter Gitika every last Sunday of the 3rd month, 6th, 9th and Twelth month of every year and would meet her alone and would also be allowed to take her out alone with himself/but not with force and not to respondent's house and meeting will be held in the city/town where the petitioner will be residing. The address of the petitioner where she with daughter Gitika is residing will be kept informed to the respondent by the petitioner by giving phone number and address. The respondent will also be allowed to know his daughter Gitika progress in Education." ....3/- -3- Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition, we are satisfied that the compromise is lawful. Accordingly, H.M.A.

Result 11
Supreme Court of India
N. Nirmala (Smt) vs Nelson Jeyakumar
Honourable Judges S.B. Majmudar, R.P. Sethi
Date of Judgment: 21 Jan 1999
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 51.82
   
   
   

ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard the appeal finally by con sent of learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The question involved in this appeal is about the custody of a minor daughter. The respondent-father was permitted to continue the custody as legal guardian. Learned single Judge of the High Court confirmed the custody of the minor daughter with the father but gave visiting rights to the appellant-mother. Against the Order passed by learned single Judge the appellant- mother in search of actual Order of custody, went in appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment while dismissing the appeal was deprived the appellant of her visiting right for which there was no cross-objection on the part of the respondent. In our opinion, such a further adverse Order against the appellant was not justified. Interest of justice will be served if the Order of the learned single Judge continuing the custody of the minor child with the respondent and as confirmed by the Division Bench is maintained subject to the modification that visiting right which was denied to the appellant by the Division Bench be continued. The Division Bench's Order is modified to the following ex tent. While maintaining the custody of the minor daughter with him, the respondent-father will be directed to leave the child every Saturday in the company of the mother. The mother is also entities to keep the child in her custody for five days during Christmas vacation and for 20 days continuously in Summer vacation. This much further modification is Ordered. It is also clarified that during summer vacation it will not be necessary for the respondent-father to again send the daughter to her mother on any Saturday. As there was a doubt about the question of visiting right of the mother on Saturday even during Summer vacation we thought it fit to extend the custody of the child with the mother for continuous 20 days during Summer vacation instead of 15 days as granted by the learned single Judge. Subject to the modification aforesaid, the Order of the learned single Judge about custody of the daughter as upheld by the Division Bench is confirmed.

Result 12
Supreme Court of India
Kumar V.Jahgirdar vs Chetana K.Ramatheertha
Honourable Judges D.P. Mohapatra, Shivaraj V. Patil
Date of Judgment: 18 Apr 2001
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 51.79
   
   
   

In paragraph 14, the learned Judge expressed the opinion that the condition 8a (quoted earlier) is not a healthy condition as it has lost site of the fact that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. The learned Judge has expressed his views by saying that Merely there is a divorce and merely she has remarried again does not mean that she can afford to ill-treat her child. In paragraph 17 of the order, the High Court observed: the petitioner is although a divorcee, she is not doing any work, she has got all the time in the world to attend to the needs of the girl. We do not intend to consider in-depth the merits of the case for the reason that both the parties have approached the Family Court with petitions seeking custody of the minor child. Suffice it to say that the High Court does not appear to have considered the welfare of the minor child in its proper perspective. Therefore, the order and the directions issued by the High Court should not influence the Family Court while deciding the question of custody of the child. We dispose of this appeal by passing the following orders: 1. Custody of the minor child Aaruni will remain with the mother (respondent herein) till disposal of the petitions filed by the parties for custody of the child; 2. The father of the child, appellant herein, will have the right to visit his daughter or take her out between 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday every week. He may also keep the child with him overnight on a Saturday once a month with prior intimation to the mother of the child. 3. Till the disposal of the petitions filed for the custody of the child by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore, the mother will not take the child out of the country. If she is to go abroad at any time she will leave the child in custody of the father during her absence. 4. The Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore will dispose of the petitions filed by the parties for custody of the child expeditiously within a period of four months from today without being influenced by the observations and findings in the order passed by the High Court on 29th September, 2000 in R.P.F.C.No.74/2000. 5. The above arrangements will remain operative till disposal of the petitions filed for custody of the child by the Family Court, Bangalore.

Result 13
Supreme Court of India
Dhanwanti Joshi vs Madhav Unde
Honourable Judges S.B. Majmudar, M. Jagannadha Rao
Date of Judgment: 04 Nov 1997
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 17
Relevancy Score: 51.05
   
   
   

That would affect the child's studies and further there is an exparte order of the US Court given permanent custody to the father and if that order is executed by the respondent, there is danger of the boy not returning to India thus frustrating any order that we are asked to pass giving temporary custody to the respondent. As to visitation rights, of course, the respondent can be given, as long as he wants to visit the child in India, at Pune, So far as this aspect is concerned, the point has not been argued before us elaborately but, in case the respondent is coming to India, he could, in advance of atleast 4 weeks. intimate in writing to his counsel either at Bombay/Delhi with copy to the address of the appellant/child and if that is done, the appellant shall positively respond in writing. We grant visitation rights for three hours per day twice a week (for 3 weeks) at a time and venue at Pune to be agreed by counsel and the appellant, and this shall be at a place at Pune where the counsel or their representatives are necessarily present it or near the venue. the respondent shall not be entitled to take the child out from the said venue. The appellant shall take all such steps to comply with the above visitation rights of the respondent. it will also be open to the parties to move this Court for any other directions in regard to these visitation rights. Appeal of the appellant-mother against order passed in the application for custody filed by the respondent before the Family Court, is allowed as stated above and the respondent's application for custody of child is dismissed subject however to the visitation rights stated above. Appeal against the order in the petition for declaring the marriage of appellant and respondent null & void is dismissed as not pressed in view of the decree of divorce, already passed. The bailable warrants issued against appellant are directed to be withdrawn, if they are subsisting.

Result 14
Supreme Court of India
Arathi Bandi vs Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors
Honourable Judges Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Date of Judgment: 16 Jul 2013
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 50.99
   
   
   

On 4th September, 2007, Superior Court of Washington, Kent passed orders granting request of the wife for continuance of trial, appointing Ms. Keilin to conduct another evaluation to make recommendations regarding relocation. However, the request of the wife to order the husband to go through a further domestic violence assessment was denied. On the same day, i.e. 4th September, 2007, the appeal of the father against the order dated 25th July, 2007, permitting the wife to travel to India with the child, was allowed. (d) The trial in the main petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage commenced on 18th March, 2008 in the Superior Court of Washington, Kent. On 19th March, 2008, parenting plan was approved with primary custody of Anand given to the mother and limited visitation rights granted to the father. During summer vacations of two weeks, each parent was granted five consecutive days of residential time, at a time. Out of State or International travel was permitted to both the parties during the residential time. The attorney of the husband was ordered by the Superior Court of Washington to prepare final orders. 4. On 20th March, 2008, the motion of the wife for relocation to India was denied. On 7th July, 2008, the wife filed a motion petition before the Superior Court of Washington, Kent requesting a clarification on final parenting plan to permit 13 consecutive days of vacation with the child for travelling to India. On 16th July, 2008, Superior Court of Washington denied her motion. In violation of the aforesaid orders, the wife travelled to India with Anand on 17th July, 2008. On 22nd August, 2008, final orders were passed in the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage. The order includes findings of fact and law entered by the Superior Court of Washington. The Court specifically recorded the reasons that led to the denial of the motion filed by the wife for relocation on 20th March, 2008. On 23rd August, 2008, divorce decree entered by the Superior Court of Washington as part of final orders. 5. On the same day, i.e., 23rd August, 2008, the wife sent an e-mail to the husband informing him that she will return on 16th September, 2008 alongwith the child. This E-mail also contained the confirmed itinerary. Since the wife did not return with the child, the husband moved an application in September, 2008 seeking modification of the final parenting plan on the grounds of violation of earlier parenting plan (19th March, 2008) and interference with his visitation rights. On 9th December, 2008, Superior Court of Washington, Kent modified the parenting plan. The husband was made custodial parent and the wife was granted visitation rights.

Result 15
Supreme Court of India
Manoj Anslem Rebeiro vs Candace Elizebath Rebeiro
Honourable Judges Rohinton Fali Nariman, Kurian Joseph
Date of Judgment: 09 May 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 50.98
   
   
   

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4983 OF 2016 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 3249 OF 2015 ] MANOJ ANSLEM REBEIRO Appellant(s) VERSUS CANDACE ELIZEBATH REBEIRO Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The father of the minor child Marileine Amanda Rebeiro is before us seeking an appropriate order on visitation rights. The High Court, having regard to the earlier background of the case, has declined the visitation rights to the father. 3. Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, we find that whatever be the background of the case, it cannot be so acrimonious so as to deny the right of the father to see his daughter. Therefore, we direct the respondent to produce the child in the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on the 3rd Saturday of every month at 11.00 AM and permit the child to interact with the father upto 01.00 PM. It will be open to the grand parents also to be present along with the father. 4. We make it clear that in view of the highly estranged relationship among the parties, the Family Court will see that the child is not taken outside the premises of the Family Court, but at the same time, the father alongwith the grandparents could get some time to interact with the child in the premises of the Family Court. 5. With the above observations and directions, the appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs. .......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ] .......................J. [ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] New Delhi; May 09, 2016.

Result 16
Supreme Court of India
Madhuri Mehta vs Meet Verma
Honourable Judges M.M. Punchhi, S.B. Majmudar
Date of Judgment: 07 May 1997
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 50.97
   
   
   

ORDER 1. During the course of hearing of this transfer petition, parties have jointly made an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 before us praying for dissolution of their marriage by mutual consent and in the body of the application a provision has been made for their only child. Though the child has been conferred the right to visit his father as and when he likes, there is no corresponding right with the father to visit his child. That state of affairs would be violating the rights of the child and the father. The husband will, thus, have a right of visitation to see his child but after giving due intimation to the mother. The parties have been estranged and have kept apart since January 1996. Earlier to the present status, the parties had their earlier marriages broken or disrupted. The husband lost his wife in a vehicular accident and the wife had divorced her earlier husband. In this background their differences can well be appreciated when both of them are highly educated doctOrs. Keeping that in view, we entertain this application and grant them divorce by mutual consent in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, for which there is ample authority reflective from past decisions of this Court. The divorce petition pending in the Family Court at Patna, shall stand disposed of automatically by this order. 2. The transfer petition and the divorce petition are disposed of accordingly.

Result 17
Supreme Court of India
Roxann Sharma vs Arun Sharma
Honourable Judges C. Nagappan, Vikramajit Sen
Date of Judgment: 17 Feb 2015
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 50.72
   
   
   

The entitlement of the left behind spouse has, therefore, to be jurally investigated. The Mother may want to relocate to the United States where she can be very gainfully employed as against the Father who has not been able to disclose any income or sources of regular income. But this is not the case or stage before us. Here, the Father ought not to have left the jurisdiction of Court in Goa which was discharging its duties as parens patirae. This seems to have been completely lost sight of and instead the learned Single Judge has given premium to the unauthorised relocation. We have already mentioned the Criminal Petition 87/2013 which was disposed of by permitting the Mother to meet Thalbir; but keeping in view the pendency of proceedings in Goa, the Court rightly did not interfere with or alter or modify any of the Orders passed by the Court in Goa. Forum shopping or Court shopping requires to be firmly dealt with. The second learned Single Judge ought to have kept in mind that it was the Father who has started proceedings in Goa where the Mother was then also residing having, prima facie, been constrained to give up her employment in the Calfornia, U.S to be in a position to look after her infant son Thalbir. Co-ordinate Benches must respect prior orders. 18 We shall abjure for making any further observations as the Trial is still pending. Keeping in mind the facts and circumstances which have been disclosed before us, we set aside the impugned Order dated 18.09.2014. It is not in consonance with the previous order of a co-ordinate Bench and in fact severely nullifies its salient directions. We set aside the impugned Order dated 2nd August, 2014 inter alia for the reason that it incorrectly shifts the burden on the Mother to show her suitability for temporary custody of the infant Thalbir and, therefore, runs counter to the provisions contained in Section 6 of the HMG Act. We clarify that nothing presented by the Father, or placed on the record discloses that the Mother is so unfit to care for the infant Thalbir as justifies the departure from the statutory postulation in Section 6 of the HMG Act. Visitation rights succinctly stated are distinct from custody or interim custody orders. Essentially they enable the parent who does not have interim custody to be able to meet the child without removing him/her from the custody of the other parent. If a child is allowed to spend several hours, or even days away from the parent who has been granted custody by the Court, temporary custody of the child stands temporarily transferred. 19 We also have taken due note of the Reports filed by the Social Worker and have heard the Counsel for the parties in this regard. We record our appreciation for the diligence with which she has performed her duties. In the event that her fees/ expenses have not been defrayed by the Father, the remainder shall be paid by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority.

Result 18
Supreme Court of India
Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal
Honourable Judges G.S. Singhvi, Arijit Pasayat
Date of Judgment: 19 Nov 2008
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 50.57
   
   
   

Respondent filed a Special Leave Petition against the High Court's order dated 14.1.2000 and also filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the `Constitution'). This Court permitted interim custody of the 20 months old child with the appellant. The respondent filed a maintenance petition before the Delhi High Court and also a petition for guardianship before a learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. The same was later withdrawn and the petition was filed in the District Court, Gurgaon. Appellant filed his reply opposing the application on the ground that the respondent had deserted the child. By order dated 2.5.2002, learned Civil Judge dismissed the application for interim custody holding that any disturbance by changing the custody of the child would traumatize him and shall not be conducive to the welfare of the child and it would affect the mental balance of the child who had developed love and affection for his father and his family members. A Revision Petition was filed by the respondent before the High Court. The High Court granted the visitation rights to the respondent by order 30.9.2002 but continued the interim custody with the appellant. The visitation rights fixed by the Court were in the following terms: (a) 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on every last Saturday of the month. (b) For a week in the aforesaid manner in summer vacations. (c) One day in Dussehra holidays (9 a.m. to 5 p.m. (d) One day in Diwali Holidays (9 a.m. to 5 p.m.). A contempt petition was filed for violation of the terms by the appellant. The learned District Judge, Gurgaon allowed the petition of the respondent and granted custody of the child to the respondent. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court against the order dated 6.1.2007. The High Court passed an interim order staying the order of custody to the respondent but continued the order with respect to visitation rights. By order dated 13.7.2007 the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed. Though the initial order of the High Court was stayed, subsequently by order dated 29.10.2007 the visitation rights were continued. 4. According to the appellant, the order of the High Court is clearly wrong on several counts. The order passed by the High Court dated 9.3.2005 convicting the appellant for contempt of court has also been assailed in Criminal Appeal No.491 of 2006. The Trial Court came to hold that since the child had remained with the appellant for a period of 7 years, he appears to have made every possible effort to obtain the custody of a minor. The learned District Judge took note of the fact that taking of the child from his father's custody may adversely affect the sentiments and upbringing of the child, but at the same time the child should not be deprived the mother's home.

Result 19
Supreme Court of India
Jitender Arora & Ors vs Sukriti Arora & Ors
Honourable Judges R.K. Agrawal, A.K. Sikri
Date of Judgment: 17 Feb 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 50.46
   
   
   

While issuing notice in the petition, this Court stayed the operation of the aforesaid judgment of the High Court. That stay order has remained in operation, as a consequence whereof custody of the child continues to be with the father. The respondent, of course, has been granted visitation rights from time to time as and when she came to India and moved an application in this behalf. Such visitation rights have normally been for the entire period of her stay in India on these visits, which range from seven days to even two months. This fact is highlighted to show that the respondent is given access to child for long periods as well, the details whereof are mentioned hereafter. When the case came up before this Court on 31.01.2013 (at that time, Vaishali was 11 years of age), the Bench (comprising of Aftab Alam and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.) decided to meet Vaishali in order to interact with her to ascertain her view point. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 02.04.2013 when the following order was passed: “In the proceedings held on January 31, 2013, it was agreed between the parties and was also noted in the order passed on that date that the child Vaishali should stay with respondent No.1 (Sukriti Arora), the mother of the child at her residence in Delhi for one month under monitoring by this Court. In continuation of that order, therefore, we direct that Vaishali should stay with her mother, tentatively for one month from today, subject to any further direction that may be passed by this Court in the meanwhile. The address of respondent No.1 where she will stay with her daughter Vaishali is 6578, Sector-C, Pocket-6&7, Vasant Kunj, Delhi and her contact number (mobile)is:9968661822. Ms. Madhavi Divan, one of the counsel representing the petitioner shall hand over the child to her mother-respondent No.1 outside the court room after we complete the passing of this order. Respondent No.1 shall deposit her passport with the Registrar (J-III) of this Court which shall be returned back to her after Vaishali goes back to her father on completion of the term of her stay with respondent No.1. We are informed that Vaishali's school is reopening from April 4, 2013. On behalf of Respondent No.1, it is stated that she will ensure that the child reaches the school in time and is brought back to her residence after school hours. The child's stay with her mother will, in no way, affect her attendance at the school or her studies. During her stay with the mother, the child will be free to speak to her father on telephone (Mobile No. 9968661822). On behalf of respondent No.1, it was stated that she would not create any obstruction in the way of the child speaking to her father. During the child's stay with her mother, we would like some responsible and competent person to monitor the arrangement.

Result 20
Supreme Court of India
Dsg vs Akg
Honourable Judges Krishna Murari, Indu Malhotra, Uday Umesh Lalit
Date of Judgment: 16 Dec 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 50.36
   
   
   

19. The Family Court vide Order dated 23.04.2019 suspended the visitation rights granted to the Petitioner – mother till the next date of hearing. 20. By a subsequent Order dated 03.05.2019, the Family Court held that further visitation to the Petitioner – mother can be allowed only in the Childrens’ Room, Tiz Hazari Complex, Delhi, where the mother could meet the child on every working 1 st, 3rd and 4th Saturday from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and on 2nd Friday from 3:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. The father agreed that as per the convenience of the child, he would allow the mother to see the child at the school gate in the morning before school hours. This arrangement of visitation by the mother is continuing ever since. 21. The High Court vide the impugned Order dated 26.03.2019 dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner – mother, and confirmed the Orders dated 28.07.2018 and 16.11.2018 passed by the Family Court. The High Court held that the three Counsellors Reports indicated that the child was comfortable in the company of the father, and wanted to live with him. The Court observed that the video clippings submitted by the Petitioner – mother do not prima facie support her allegation of sexual abuse by the father. The Order dated 26.03.2019 passed by the High Court is impugned by the Petitioner – mother in the present Special Leave Petition. 22. This Court took up the present SLP for hearing on 25.10.2019 when Notice was issued. The Petitioner – mother submitted a DVD containing some video clippings of the child. She placed on record some additional documents in support of her contention that the child was being allegedly molested by the Respondent – father. 23. On 05.12.2019, the Respondent – husband appeared before this Court in person along with his Counsel. We directed the Respondent ­ father to produce the child before this Court on 10.12.2019. 24. On 10.12.2019, both the parties and the minor daughter appeared before us. We individually interviewed both the parents and the child. Having interacted with the child, we are of the view that the minor girl is certainly capable of forming an intelligent preference regarding her custody. We found the girl who is over 12 years of age, and is studying in Class VII to be articulate, and unequivocal about her definite desire to reside with her father. She stated that she received love and affection from her father, who was taking care of her food, education, and would assist her in her school projects and activities. Reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in Nil Ratan Kundu & Anr. v. Abhijit Kundu1 that while exercising parens patriae jurisdiction, the Court is required to give due weight to the ordinary comfort of the child, contentment, intellectual, moral and physical development, health, education and general maintenance, and the favorable surroundings. The Court is not bound either by statutes, nor by strict rules of evidence, nor procedure or precedent.

Result 21
Supreme Court of India
Sanghamitra Ghosh vs Kajal Kumar Ghosh
Honourable Judges G.P. Mathur, Dalveer Bhandari
Date of Judgment: 20 Nov 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
Relevancy Score: 49.96
   
   
   

That state of affairs would be violating the rights of the child and the father. The husband will, thus, have a right of visitation to see his child but after giving due intimation to the mother. The parties have been estranged and have kept apart since January 1996. Earlier to the present status, the parties had their earlier marriages broken or disrupted. The husband lost his wife in a vehicular accident and the wife had divorced her earlier husband. In this background their differences can well be appreciated when both of them are highly educated doctors. Keeping that in view, we entertain this application and grant them divorce by mutual consent in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, for which there is ample authority reflective from past decisions of this Court. The divorce petition pending in the Family Court at Patna, shall stand disposed of automatically by this order. The transfer petition and the divorce petitions are disposed of accordingly." In another transfer petition in the matrimonial matter, in Anita Sabharwal v. Anil Sabharwal reported in (1997) 11 SCC 490, this Court was of the view that there was no hope for the parties to live together and passed the following order: "A divorce petition being HMA Case No.863 of 1994 preferred by the respondent- husband was pending in the Court of Shri A.K. Pathak, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The instant transfer petition was moved by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the said case to the Family Court, Mumbai. During the pendency of the transfer petition, parties as well as their counsel had on 9.9.1996 put on record a compromise deed wherein they have agreed to get divorce by mutual consent. Strictly speaking, the preconditions of such claim have not been laid inasmuch as a petition to that effect has not been filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) before the first matrimonial court, and that the statutory period of 6 months has not even commenced. Be that as it may, it stands established beyond doubt on our summoning of the original file  HMA Case No.863 of 1994  that the parties were married about 14 years ago, have spent the prime of their life in acrimony and litigating and that it is time that their mutuality bears some fruit in putting them apart. Therefore, we take the divorce petition HMA Case No.863 of 1994 on our own file and import thereto the compromise deed put on record by the parties jointly. In terms therewith, a sum of Rs.7 lakhs stands paid to the wife by means of 3 separate bank drafts of Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs. Recurring provision has been made therein for their children's education and visitation rights of the father. We have questioned the parties and they are eager to dissolve the matrimonial tie so that they can rearrange their lives well in time.

Result 22
Supreme Court of India
Kumar V. Jahgirdar vs Chethana Ramatheertha
Honourable Judges Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari
Date of Judgment: 29 Jan 2004
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 49.93
   
   
   

CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 4230-4231 of 2003 PETITIONER: Kumar V. Jahgirdar RESPONDENT: Chethana Ramatheertha DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/01/2004 BENCH: Shivaraj V. Patil & D.M. Dharmadhikari. JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT Dharmadhikari J. In these two appeals, the subject matter of dispute between the married couple, now separated by decree of divorce obtained on mutual consent under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, is their rival claim to the exclusive custody of their daughter  Aaruni who is now little above 9 years of age and is prosecuting her education in a well-known school in the city of Bangalore where the parties reside. After obtaining divorce on mutual consent, the wife  Smt. Chethana Ramatheertha is re-married to Mr. Anil Kumble, a Cricketer of national and international repute. The Family Court of Bangalore by its judgment dated 20.4.2002, after considering the evidence led by the parents of the child, came to the conclusion that as the wife is re- married to a famous cricketer and is leading a different style of life involving frequent tours with her second husband for attending cricket events, there is likelihood of child developing distance and dislike for her natural father. The exclusive custody of the child was directed to be given to the natural father with only right of visitations to the mother on every week on Sunday between 10 A.M. to 8 P.M. and to keep the child with her overnight on two Sundays in a month with prior intimation to her former husband. The High Court, in appeal, by its impugned judgment dated 27.1.2003, has, however, taken a different view and reversed the judgment of the Family Court. On the basis of evidence on record, the Division Bench of High Court has formed an opinion that in the absence of compelling reasons and circumstances, the mother cannot be deprived of the company of the child to the detriment of the interest of the child. The High Court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the family court and directed that the mother should continue to retain exclusive custody of the child with visitation rights to her former husband. The former husband is allowed to keep the child on week ends either on Saturday or Sunday from morning till evening and he can also be with the child during half the period of vacations in the school. The stay of child with each of them during half of the vacations, is to be shared by the two parents under mutual agreement. The father is also allowed to visit the child as and when he likes with the prior intimation and mutual arrangements with the mother. The parties are also given liberty to seek necessary modifications in the arrangement evolved by the High Court. For deciding the controversy regarding the custody of the child, only few more facts are relevant and required to be stated. The parties were married in the year 1986 at Mysore and had a married life for more than 12 years.

Result 23
Supreme Court of India
Kumar V. Jahgirdar vs Chethana Ramatheertha
Honourable Judges Shivaraj V. Patil, D.M. Dharmadhikari
Date of Judgment: 29 Jan 2004
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 49.88
   
   
   

The family court in its judgment dated 20.4.2002 granted exclusive custody of the child to the former husband with only right of weekly visitations to the mother on the grounds inter alia that the mother is re-married to a famous cricketer whereas the former husband is still unmarried and his nature of business as a Stock Broker is such that he is able to give required attention to the rearing of the child. The family court also, on the basis of apprehensions raised in evidence on behalf of the former husband, came to the conclusion that custody of child with natural father would rule out possibility of attempts on the part of the mother and her second husband to induce or create ill-will in the mind of the child towards her natural father. The family court also recorded that during long periods when the girl child lived with her natural father, she herself expressed satisfaction and happiness. The wife appealed against the judgment of the family court to the High Court. The child was interviewed twice by the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court on 20.11.2002 and 05.12.2002. On the basis of interviews with the child who is school going and aged about 9 years, the High Court recorded in its judgment that the child expressed no dislike or negative feelings towards any of her natural parents or her step father. The High Court after examining the evidence on record and interviewing the child, came to the conclusion that in the absence of any compelling or adverse circumstances, the natural mother cannot be deprived of the exclusive custody of a growing female child. The judgment of the family court has been upset by giving exclusive custody of the child to the natural mother with visitation rights on week ends to the natural father on timings mentioned in the order. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court, the former husband is, in appeal, before us. Learned senior counsel, Shri S.S. Javali appearing on behalf of the petitioner/former husband took great pains by taking us through the record of the case and particularly the relevant parts of the depositions of the estranged couple and the second husband of the wife. He severely criticised certain general remarks and statements made by the High Court in the impugned judgment such as that 'mother has an absolute right to keep company of the child unless deprivation of it is required for compelling reasons'. It is argued that such an erroneous approach on the part of the High Court, has resulted in upsetting a just and very well-reasoned judgment of the family court. From the arguments advanced on behalf of the former husband, what we have been able to gather as more important circumstances set up against allowing the wife to retain the custody of the child inter alia are that the wife is re-married to a cricket celebrity and has a style of life which requires frequent foreign tours, exposure to public life and media.

Result 24
Supreme Court of India
Soumitra Kumar Nahar vs Parul Nahar
Honourable Judges Dr. Chandrachud, Ajay Rastogi
Date of Judgment: 18 Feb 2020
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 49.8
   
   
   

We accordingly direct the respondent to comply with the terms of the mutual settlement in so far as the visitation rights of the father appellant herein to meet Master Shravan is concerned and in so far as granting visitation rights to meet the daughter Sanjana is concerned, the same cannot be allowed in the light of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances. It is, however, made clear that nothing will come in the way of the daughter, if she wishes to meet her father at any time or even to visit him or stay with him as per her own wish and desire. 29. We are not inclined to delve into the legalities of the case and neither do we feel the need to discuss the judgments relied upon by both the parties as in the facts and circumstances of the present case, a specific issue of visitation rights requires consideration, and thus we are not limiting ourselves to legalistic aspects.” 15. The judgment of the High Court became a subject matter of challenge at the instance of the appellant­husband in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6201 of 2016. 16. Pending Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6201 of 2016, in Mat App No. 65 of 2015, the High Court of Delhi interacted with the children and took assistance of Dr. Achal Bhagat, Psychotherapist, and thereafter passed an Order dated 12 th May, 2016 with a direction to ascertain the background facts regarding the relationship of the children with their father Soumitra Kumar Nahar and paternal grandparents before they joined the sole custody of their mother and observed as follows:­ “5. During the course of hearing, with the consent and on the request of the parties, efforts had been made to explore the possibility of resolution of issues relating to visitation of the children of the parties with the respondent­father. On the 22 nd January, 2016, in order to obtain independent expert opinion with regard to the desirability of such interactions and meetings, we had appointed Dr. Achal Bhagat, Psycho Therapist to make an assessment with regard to the advisability of the compelled visitation in such adversarial atmosphere. We have received a report from Dr. Achal Bhagat in a sealed cover. This report has made a request that the report be kept confidential. 6. Given our above observations, it seems to us that the parties and the children need counselling. We would therefore, request Dr. Bhagat to ascertain some background facts regarding the relationship of the children with their father and grandparents before they joined the sole custody of the mother. If deemed necessary and appropriate, Dr. Bhagat may utilise the services of any other specialist(s). A report be submitted only thereafter. 7. Though at one point, we were inclined to note the report and to defer recording our observations to the next date. However, on further consideration, this course did not seem appropriate keeping in view the concern of this court with the welfare of the children.

Result 25
Supreme Court of India
Harshita Bhasin vs State Of W.B & Ors
Honourable Judges L Nageswara Rao, D Y Chandrachud, T S Thakur
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2016
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 49.7
   
   
   

7 Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has fairly stated before the Court that while the respondent would be willing to abide by any reasonable arrangement which would obviate inconvenience to her children, this Court may require the petitioner to provide for the airfare both for the respondent and her mother to travel to New Delhi and the petitioner may be directed to make arrangements to facilitate their stay in a room in a hotel in New Delhi for two nights. During the course of the hearing we had indicated a viable arrangement by which instead of being required to travel to Kolkata every fortnight, the children shall travel once in a month to Kolkata while the respondent will meet the children in New Delhi once in a month. Both the learned counsel have fairly agreed to the suggestion. In view of the above position, we issue the following directions:- Pending the hearing and final disposal of the guardianship proceedings, the respondent shall be entitled to visitation rights and to meet her two minor children, Ranvir and Hridaan in the following manner : The applicant father shall travel with the children to Kolkata, on a Sunday, in the first fortnight of every month so as to enable the respondent mother to meet the children in the manner indicated in the order of the High Court dated 8 October 2013; The respondent shall in the second fortnight of every month be entitled to visitation rights at New Delhi in the manner indicated in the order of the High Court dated 8 October 2013. To facilitate disbursement of the travel and hotel expenses of the respondent and her mother, the applicant shall by means of an electronic transfer of funds deposit a sum of rupees forty thousand per month into a nominated bank account of the respondent by the seventh day of every month. The respondent shall make her own arrangements for travel to and fro from New Delhi and for stay. The respondent shall fetch the children from the chambers of Ms Udita Seth, Advocate (Chamber No.20A, R.K. Garg Block, Supreme Court, Bhagwan Das Road, New Delhi) and return the children to the father at the same place. The period of visitation shall be as prescribed in the order of the High Court dated 8 October 2013. 9 The order of the High Court dated 8 October 2013 shall in the circumstances stand modified by consent to the above extent. 10 The Interlocutory Application is accordingly disposed of. ........................................CJI [T S THAKUR] ...........................................J [Dr D Y CHANDRACHUD] ..........................................J [L NAGESWARA RAO] New Delhi December 14, 2016

Result 26
Supreme Court of India
Manjula vs K.R. Mahesh
Honourable Judges Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
Date of Judgment: 11 Jul 2006
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 49.53
   
   
   

CASE NO.: Transfer Petition (civil) 947 of 2005 PETITIONER: Manjula RESPONDENT: K.R. Mahesh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/07/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Marriages are made in heaven, is an adage. A bride leaves the parental home for the matrimonial home, leaving behind sweet memories there with a hope that she will see a new world full of love in her groom's house. She leaves behind not only her memories, but also her surname, gotra and maidenhood. She expects not only to be a daughter-in-law, but a daughter in fact. But the large number of cases flooding the courts with allegations of torture, harassment for dowry, saddens one's heart. Where lies the fault? Is it lack of communication or adjustment? Or, is it the victory of greed and materialistic needs over love, affection and human values? The answer is difficult to find. There is another angle involved. The evil design to harass the in-laws over petty things by making accusations of dowry demand and torture. In such cases, the vital question again is whether laws which are really dynamic instruments fashioned by society for the purpose of achieving human relations by elimination of social tensions and conflicts have achieved the intended objectives or are being used as weapons of an assassin to harass and humiliate others instead of being used as a shield against injustice. There is another social angle involved. When the parents fight out their marital disputes, sometimes acrimoniously, the child who have nothing to do with the fight and is the ultimate victim watches helplessly. The fight goes on unmindful of the fact that in future the child carries the tag of being one of a broken family. It is more stigmatic for a girl child. The stigma becomes more visible when her marriage is thought of in later years. This reality of life is, in most cases, lost sight of. But sometimes the parties take note of this reality and for the sake of the child iron out their differences. During the hearing of the transfer petition a suggestion was given by learned counsel for the parties that the marriage has become irretrievably broken and keeping in view the welfare of their daughter it would be better if the petition for divorce filed by the respondent is allowed, after making sufficient arrangement for the welfare of the daughter. The petitioner and the respondent entered into wedlock on 28.11.1994 and the daughter was born on 30.12.1995. Thereafter it appears that cracks stared appearing in the marital relations and a series of litigation has resulted. In fact, on the basis of a prayer for maintenance, the Family Court at Mumbai has granted maintenance at the rate of Rs.1500/- per month. The respondent has filed a petition for divorce on various grounds. Attempts have been made by learned counsel for the parties to see whether the differences can be ironed out. But the result appears to have been negative.

Result 27
Supreme Court of India
Deepti Bhandari vs Nitin Bhandari & Anr
Honourable Judges J. Chelameswar, Altamas Kabir
Date of Judgment: 14 Dec 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 49.39
   
   
   

We, therefore, see no substance in the persistent demand of the Respondent No.1 that he should be allowed to meet the Petitioner and their minor child at Jaipur to enable him and his family members to meet the child on a regular basis. In our view, it is the Respondent No.1 who should make an effort to meet his minor child in Delhi as and when he wishes to do so. The Petitioner can have no objection whatsoever to such an arrangement and must also ensure that the child is able to meet her father in terms of the order of this Court on all weekends in New Delhi instead of the second and fourth Saturday of each month. 15. As far as the difficulty expressed on behalf of the parents of the Respondent No.1 is concerned, they will be free to apply to the Trial Court for exemption from personal appearance on the dates of the different cases and if such applications are made, the same should be considered by the Trial Court looking to the physical difficulties that may be faced by the parents of the Respondent No.1, who are both considerably aged. The visitation rights granted to the Respondent No.1 will have equal application to his parents and they too will be at liberty to visit the minor child in Delhi, as and when they wish to do so, along with the Respondent No.1. 16. The application for modification of the order dated 8th April, 2010, filed by the Petitioner before the High Court on 30th April, 2010, which was dismissed by the High Court, is, accordingly allowed along with the Transfer Petitions filed by the Petitioner. The order of 8th April, 2010, is modified to the extent indicated above, whereby the Respondent No.1 and his parents will be entitled to meet the minor child, Mannat, on every Saturday in New Delhi, between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. In the event, the child is willing, the Respondent No.1 may also take her out for the day and return her to the custody of the Petitioner within 6.00 p.m. This arrangement will continue, until further orders. 17. In addition, Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos.856-857 of 2010 filed by the Petitioner are allowed. Let Case No.279 of 2009, which had been filed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Case No.65 of 2009, also filed by him under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, be transferred from the Family Court at Jaipur to a Family Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi. The transferor Court is directed to send the records of the aforesaid cases to the transferee Court, so that the matter may be heard and disposed of by the transferee Court with the utmost expedition. 18. In view of the facts involved, the parties will each bear their own costs in these proceedings. ............................................................J. (ALTAMAS KABIR) ............................................................J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR) ............................................................J. (J. CHELAMESWAR) New Delhi Dated: 14.12.2011

Result 28
Supreme Court of India
David Jude vs Hannah Grace Jude And Others
Honourable Judges M.B. Shah, Arun Kumar
Date of Judgment: 30 Jul 2003
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 49.37
   
   
   

If during the interregnum the respondent wants to visit the child in USA, he can do so after making prior arrangement with the Ist appellant to see the child. Passport of the child should be released on the filing of the undertaking. The impugned order of the High Court is accordingly set aside. The Family Court should dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 18 months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly." After passing of the aforesaid order, both the respondents submitted their undertakings by way of affidavits in this Court. The relevant portion of the undertakings is as under: — "By Respondent no.1 (Wife) As directed by this Hon'ble Court in the order dated 15.9.1998, I hereby undertake to bring the child back to India when so ordered by the Hon'ble Family Court and further undertake to appear before the Hon'ble Family Court, Hyderabad, as and when required by the Hon'ble Family Court. By Respondent no.2 (Mother of Respondent No.1) As directed by this Hon'ble Court, I undertake to bring the child back to India as and when required by the Hon'ble Family Court, Hyderabad." Meanwhile, respondent no.1 filed case No.5249 of Family Law before the Circuit Court for Montgomery country, Maryland inter alia for divorce and custody of the child. Thereafter, the Family Court at Hyderabad proceeded with the trial and examined the husband. The matter was kept for evidence on behalf of the wife but she failed to appear before the Court on 7.2.2000. Various orders were passed by the Family Court, but she remained absent from the proceedings. Finally, on 11.4.2000, the Family Court passed the following order:— 1. The husband is appointed as the guardian of the minor child; 2. The wife is directed to restore the custody of the minor child to the husband within one month from the date of the order; 3. The wife is permitted to take interim custody of the minor child whenever she comes to Hyderabad and hand over the minor to the husband while she leaves the country; 4. The wife is not entitled to remove the custody of the minor child out of the jurisdiction of the Family Court at Hyderabad at any time; 5. The husband is directed not to handle the amounts lying in FDR of Rs.5,00,000/- including the interest accrued thereon till the minor attains the age of majority. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondents/ contemnors filed appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is still pending.

Result 29
Supreme Court of India
Pankaj Mahajan vs Dimple @ Kajal
Honourable Judges B.S. Chauhan, P. Sathasivam
Date of Judgment: 30 Sep 2011
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
Relevancy Score: 49.36
   
   
   

24) All these factual details culled out from the pleadings and evidence of both the parties clearly show the conduct of the respondent-wife towards the appellant-husband. With these acceptable facts and details, it cannot be concluded that the appellant-husband has not made out a case of cruelty at the hands of the respondent-wife. We are satisfied that the appellant-husband had placed ample evidence on record that the respondent-wife is suffering from "mental disorder" and due to her acts and conduct, she caused grave mental cruelty to him and it is not possible for the parties to live with each other, therefore, a decree of divorce deserves to be granted in favour of the appellant-husband. In addition to the same, it was also brought to our notice that because of the abovementioned reasons, both appellant-husband and the respondent-wife are living separately for the last more than nine years. There is no possibility to unite the chain of marital life between the appellant-husband and the respondent-wife. 25) In the light of the facts and circumstances as discussed above, in our view, the impugned order of the High Court resulted in grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant- husband, more particularly, the High Court failed to consider the relevant material aspects from the pleadings and the evidence, the ultimate conclusion cannot be sustained. The appellant-husband established and proved both grounds in terms of Section 13 of the Act. In the result, the appeal stands allowed. The divorce petition filed by the appellant-husband stands accepted and a decree of divorce is hereby passed dissolving the marriage of the appellant with the respondent from today, i.e. 30.09.2011. The impugned order of the High Court dated 06.08.2009 in FAO No. M-123 of 2006 is set aside. The appellant-husband is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2 (Two) lakhs as alimony to the respondent-wife in two equal instalments within a period of three months from today and to deposit Rs. 3 (Three) lakhs in the name of his daughter in the shape of three FDRs in a nearest nationalised bank in three equal instalments commencing from January, 2012 ending with June, 2012. On attaining majority, the daughter is permitted to withdraw the amount. Till such period, the respondent-wife is permitted to withdraw accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank from the said deposit for the benefit and welfare of their daughter. ................................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM) ...............................................J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) NEW DELHI; SEPTEMBER 30, 2011.

Result 30
Supreme Court of India
Rajeswari Chandrasekar Ganesh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu
Honourable Judges A.M. Khanwilkar, J.B. Pardiwala
Date of Judgment: 14 Jul 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 49.01
   
   
   

24. In November 2019, both the expert evaluators, submitted their opinion, stating that the petitioner was fit to have unsupervised time with the children and there was no merit in any of the allegations levelled by the respondent no.2. 25. In February 2020, the petitioner was able to procure a new job and obtained H1B visa via sponsorship. The petitioner moved back to Findlay, Ohio, where the minor son was born and was able to secure a new apartment with good facilities for the children. However, according to the petitioner, the respondent no.2 failed to abide by the custody order dated 17th June 2019 and also failed to abide by the evaluation reports recommending unsupervised visitation to the petitioner qua the minor children. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 declined to bring the children to the petitioner and allowed her to visit them only in his presence. 26. It appears that a shared parenting plan was arrived at between the parties vide order dated 12th May 2021 passed by the Court of Common Pleas, Division of Domestic Relations, Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The shared parenting means the parents share the rights and responsibilities as provided for in a plan approved by the Court as to all or some of the aspects of the physical and legal care of their children. The mother and the father together, under a shared parenting agreement, are granted custody, care and control of the minor children until further order that may be passed by the Court subject to certain terms and conditions. By virtue of the shared parenting plan referred to above, both the parties got joint custody of their children. The visitation schedule was clearly laid down in the shared parenting plan dated 12th May 2021. The parties agreed to not relocate without the consent of the other party and without the Court’s permission by way of a 60 day prior notice and the passports of the children were to stay in alternation with the non-custodian parent while the children were in the custody of the other parent. 27. It appears that a separation agreement was also entered upon between the parties dated 27th July 2021. On 28th July 2021, the respondent no.2 sent an email to the US Court in the form of an intimation that he would like to take his minor children on a vacation to India and asked the petitioner-mother to keep the children for three weeks. 28. On 15th August 2021, the respondent no.2 posted a travel itinerary. The petitioner noticed that the itinerary was such that the children would miss their school by a week. The petitioner declined to accept the itinerary. The petitioner requested the respondent no.2 to go to India for his vacation, and during that period, the kids would stay with their mother. 29. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.2, out of spite, called upon the local police levelling false allegations that the petitioner was causing harm to her children owing to an alleged mental illness.

Relevant High Court Judgments
Year From: 1950, Year To: 2024

Result 1
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs Muktangshu Lahon
Honourable Judges Devashis Baruah
Date of Judgment: 27 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 4
Relevancy Score: 56.97
   
   
   

The said application was petition No.1416/2019 for striking out Section 26 of the Act of 1955 as stated in the cause title which was allowed by the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. In the said order, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kamrup (M), Guwahati also passed an order that as the respondent was the father, he may be allowed to meet his child on holidays/every Sundays and the grandparents of the minor child were also allowed to accompany the respondent when he visits his child. It was mentioned that the meeting would take place prior to the sunset and the mother of the child would accompany the child if she desires. Subsequent thereto, on 04.11.2019, an application was filed by the respondent herein drawing the attention of the Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati that the order dated 12.07.2019 was not adhered to by the petitioner herein by not permitting the respondent to properly meet his daughter as the petitioner repeatedly called the child/daughter inside the bedroom and passed offensive remarks against the respondent all the while and thus took away the precious time of the visits on all the three occasions, i.e. on 21.07.2019; 10.08.2019 and 11.08.2019. It was also averred that the mother of the petitioner even ordered the child not to accept the gifts the respondent brought for his daughter. It was alleged that as all the documents pertaining to the daughter of the petitioner and the respondents were with the petitioner and as such the respondent had serious apprehension that the petitioner may leave India along with their daughter without the consent of the respondent and without informing him. It was under such circumstances, the said petition was filed by the respondent seeking permission to take his daughter out of the house to spend time with his daughter for her amusement and a change of environment on holidays/Sundays; in the interim, the respondent be given the custody of his daughter during the vacation period so that the respondent can bring his daughter to Guwahati to live with him during the vacation period and prohibiting the petitioner to leave India along with his daughter without consent of the respondent during the pendency of the case or to pass such Page No.# 6/18 order(s).

Result 2
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 61
Relevancy Score: 54.7
   
   
   

Besides you are taking the minor child out of the house wherein he and myself are presently residing since September 2004. Each time you are being told not to take the child out of the house but you do not pay any notice to the same. The order fact is that almost all your visits are made when I am not present in the house. In the present situation I have not yet received any reply to my notice dated 17.05.06. I request you to restrict your visits to once a week, for a period of half an hour, and not take the child outside the premises of my parents' house pending court settlement regarding visitation rights." 82. From the correspondence it could be seen that the http://www.judis.nic.in respondent has been visiting the house of the appellant's parents with whom she was living with the child and that according to the appellant, visits by the respondent were without information and that the child was taken out of the house. Emotional feelings of the father/respondent to be with the child is understandable that he wanted to spend more time with his child. But whatever the appellant has recorded in her diary, are before the parties decided to file a joint petition for divorce, by mutual consent. Merely because the appellant had suggested in her letters, sent for visitation rights, restricting the time, once in a week, for half an hour, before the filing of the joint institution by mutual consent for divorce, it cannot be concluded that the appellant has intended to snap the relationship of father and son, once in for all. 83. Visitation rights have been granted in the order dated 10.11.2009 in F.C.O.P.No.3499/2009. It is the contention of the respondent that visitation rights have been denied, child was brainwashed, normal with others, and not normal with the biological father. Appellant has remarried in June' 2010. Therefore the respondent has filed I.A.No.2779/2010 in O.P.No.3499/2009, at paragraph Nos.5, 7 http://www.judis.nic.in and 8 of the appellant, the respondent has contended as follows:- "5. I was visiting the child promptly and taking him out. He was very fond of me. I was keenly interested in the welfare of the child. I gave all the affection that he needed. But being more under the custody of the mother, the Respondent herein had greater influence on the child. She started brain washing the child.

Result 3
Delhi High Court
Kinri Dhir vs Veer Singh
Honourable Judges V. Kameswar Rao
Date of Judgment: 24 March 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 19
Relevancy Score: 53.9
   
   
   

Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what matter the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights." 4. When a court grants visitation rights, these rights should be granted in such a way that the child and the parent who is granted visitation right, can meet in an atmosphere where they can be like parent and child and this atmosphere can definitely not be found in the office of District Legal Services Authority. That atmosphere may be found in the home of the parent or in a park or a restaurant or any other place where the child and the parent are comfortable." (emphasis supplied) 32. The question is whether the visitation rights of the minor child given in favour of the respondent on a daily basis for a period of two hours are justified. There is no dispute that the child is less than three years old. The plea of Ms. Luthra is that the impugned order disregards the interest and welfare of the child as it upsets the schedule of the child and the respondent has been taking the child out without following the COVID-19 norms. She also stated that the visitation rights hinder the custodial rights of the petitioner, with abrupt alterations in the time schedule of the minor has left him disoriented and also disregard the sleep schedule of the minor child. 33. On the other hand, it is the case of Ms. John that the respondent has been taking care of all the needs of the child, he has also taken a sabbatical from work and that the respondent is a primarily care giver of the child.

Result 4
Delhi High Court
Abhimanyu Poria vs Rajbir Singh And Ors
Honourable Judges Hima Kohli, Deepa Sharma
Date of Judgment: 12 January 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 21
Relevancy Score: 53.27
   
   
   

38. We may note here that during the course of arguments, Mr. Narula, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/father had stated during the visitation rights granted under the impugned order, that the appellant was never left alone with the respondent No.3 in the children€Ÿs room attached to the Family Court, for him to be able to bond with her and that the maternal uncles of the respondent No.3 are always hovering around them, which was creating an impediment in the meeting. Learend counsel had also stated that the appellant is very apprehensive of meeting with the child in Gurgaon, due to the immense influence that the respondents No.1 and 2 wield in the area. 39. To allay the aforesaid apprehension, we had suggested that the visitation rights in respect of the respondent No.3, granted to the appellant under the impugned order, twice a month, should initially be arranged in the children€Ÿs room attached to the concerned Family Court itself. Further, in view of the grievance expressed that the maternal uncles of the respondent No.3 were constantly interfering during the visitation rights, we had suggested that the Family Court can direct a Counsellor to remain present in the children€Ÿs room in that duration. However, the said suggestions did not find favour with the appellant. 40. Now that the impugned order presently declining the interim custody of the respondent No.3 to the appellant has been upheld, we are of the opinion that for any further progress to be made in forging a filial bond between the appellant and the respondent No.3, the father and daughter ought to be left alone during the periods of visitation.

Result 5
Gujarat High Court
Bhavnaben D/O Lebabhai Rabari vs State Of Gujarat
Honourable Judges Sonia Gokani, Gita Gopi
Date of Judgment: 25 June 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 1
Relevancy Score: 53.02
   
   
   

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI) 1. This is an application preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the mother seeking custody of her daughter, who is presently with her divorced husband. 2. The petitioner married the respondent No.4 on 10.05.2011 and her daughter came to be born out of the R/SCR.A/9007/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2021 said wedlock. Between the spouses, due to internal disputes which had led to irretrievable break down of the marriage, the divorce was perceived to be last resort and accordingly, on 04.10.2020, by way of a customary divorce permissible in their caste, the spouses chose to severe their ties finally. 3. It is the say of the petitioner that at the time of the divorce, it had been decided between the parties that the daughter would continue to be with the mother and the respondent No.4 whenever would choose to meet his daughter he would be permitted to so do it. In between, he had taken the daughter for a few days and had returned her to mother. 4. On 02.12.2020, the respondent No.4 took his daughter for some days and the petitioner was under the impression that he would be returning the daughter after a few days. When that did not happen, and when the petitioner realized that the respondent No.4 got engaged with the third person, on 09.12.2020, her brother and cousin had gone to village Methan to take back the R/SCR.A/9007/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/06/2021 daughter. The former husband-respondent No.4 had denied to handover the custody of the child and instead, had abused the relatives of the petitioner. 5. The grievance on the part of the petitioner is that the daughter is only four years of age and she is required to be with her mother and instead she has been illegally detained by the respondent Nos.4 to 9. The mother is not being permitted to meet the daughter therefore, she firstly chose to give an application to P.S.I., Kakoshi Police Station. She has expressed her apprehension that the daughter was not well and may suffer further for want of care of mother.

Result 6
Gujarat High Court
Jalpaben Prayagraj Rathod vs Prayagraj Natwarlal Rathod
Honourable Judges A.G.Uraizee
Date of Judgment: 16 June 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 52.58
   
   
   

He submits that the visitation rights may be granted to the wife only once C/SCA/1503/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2021 in a month from Saturday afternoon to Sunday evening at Jamnagar. He also submits that since visitation rights are to be made available at Jamnagar, the order of paying Rs.3,000/- towards expenses may be set aside. 11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions. 12. It is manifestly clear from the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties that the husband and the wife are at loggerheads and as of now chances of amicable settlement of the dispute whole hog either way between the parties seem very bleak. 13. It is a trite law that in the proceedings between the estranged husband and the wife concerning the custody of their minor child/children, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the child/children. 14. It is not in dispute that presently the minor child is with his father and they are residing at Rajkot. It is also not in dispute that the minor is pursuing his education at Rajkot. In the backdrop of these facts, I am of the view that granting visitation rights to the wife every weekend pending two different proceedings would put unnecessary physical and psychological strain on the minor. At the same time, it is the duty of the court to ensure that the bond between the child and his mother is not snapped because of long interval of their meeting. 15. In light of the aforesaid, I am of the view that ends of justice would meet if the orders passed under the Domestic Violence Act and the Guardians and Wards Act are merged and a common order for visitation rights in favour of the wife is passed pending these two proceedings.

Result 7
Allahabad High Court
Smt. Payal Agrawal vs Deepak Garg
Honourable Judges V.K.Shukla
Date of Judgment: 18 January 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
Relevancy Score: 52.43
   
   
   

Child in question is not at all signatory to the said compromise, and qua his interest, the Court has supervisory role to play, to ensure welfare of the minor child. Right of visitation has not at all been defined under Hindu Marriage Act but said right has been recognized by judicial pronouncement while balancing the equity between the parents i.e. husband and wife or any other third party. Visitation right is ante- thesis of custody inasmuch as one who has got custody, he/she will not require visitation right and one who has not got custody then he/she can certainly pray for visitation right to meet near and dear one. Said right has been recognized by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumar V. Jahgirhar Vs. Chetana K Ramatheertha reported in 2001 AIR (SC) 2179 and in the case of Shila B Das Vs. P.R. Sugasree reported 2006 AIR Jharr-277 . In the said case where custody has been granted to one then visitation right has been granted to other. Said right has been conferred keeping in view human angle attached to the problem. Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that it is human problem and same required to be solved with human approach. In 59 Am Jur, dealing with subject ' Parent and Child' at pages 35, 36 have dealt with right of visitation. It has been mentioned that right of visitation derives from the right of custody and is controlled by the some principles i.e. the welfare of the child is the relevant consideration. A parent denied custody does not thereby lose his natural right to visit his children, the said right may be denied if the best interest of child so demands. Visitation right are allowed to ordinarily to non-custodial parent. In the present case merely because custody has been handed over to mother of child with clear cut understanding that custody will not be claimed, can it be said then even visitation right has been surrendered ? Answer would be "No", for the simple reason that father has got every right to satisfy the court by virtue of being father that at least his visitation right be preserved so that he can meet the child and shower his love and affection to her which would be for the welfare of the child. Here in the present case it has been stated that husband and his old parent who have lone grand daughter intend to have visitation right to shower their love and affection.

Result 8
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Karandeep Singh Chawla vs Smt. Gurshish Karandeep Chawla
Honourable Judges Sheel Nagu
Date of Judgment: 1 March 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 10
Relevancy Score: 52.34
   
   
   

Husband moved an application on 28.11.2019 with a prayer to permit husband to meet minor daughter, which was opposed by respondent on the ground that husband has already met his daughter on 28.11.2019 and there is no need to call minor daughter on each and every date of hearing. It is further stated by respondent that appellant forcibly tried to take custody of minor daughter near Madan Mahal Guruduwara, Jabalpur. 10.10 Family Court has observed that wife is not interested to comply with order passed by Family Court on 18.05.2017 in Case No. 17/2016 whereby she was ordered to keep the minor daughter present in the Court for purpose of meeting with husband once in a month. Despite assurance given by wife in Court that minor daughter will appear before Court on 08.01.2020, she did not brought minor daughter in Family Court and Court observed that wife is not interested to comply with order dated 11.12.2019 and she is not serious towards Court proceedings. Thereafter, on 16.1.2020, minor daughter appeared in Court, but became uncomfortable after seeing appellant/father and, therefore, was permitted to go back home. On 29.2.2020, minor daughter appeared before Court and met her father. 10.11 Learned Counsel for husband submits that wife poisoned mind of minor daughter against him and tutored her to speak against husband in Court. Wife through social media and website by uploading several videos tried to damage prestige and reputation of family of husband and defamed them and, therefore, he is entitled for decree of divorce. 10.12 He further submits that both of them have leveled serious allegations against each other, they are living separately since more than 9 years, several criminal cases are lodged by wife and now it is not possible to settle the dispute and instant case is a case of irretrievable break down of marriage and there is no need to prolong the agony in the absence of any hope of cohabitation. He thus prayed for decree of divorce. Apex Court in the matter of V.E.Maya Vs. K.S. Vetrivel SLP (civil) no. 11761-11762/2022 decided on 11.09.2023 has held that High Court has committed error of law by relying on the principle of irretrievable breakdown of marriage to dissolve the marriage between parties in a contested divorce proceedings without recording the finding of cruelty on the part of wife.

Result 9
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 60
Relevancy Score: 52.31
   
   
   

Of late, in the last 3 weeks he forcibly takes take the child out of the house to shops (bakery, bookstores etc), that are located about one kilometer from my house, against the will of my parents. As far as you statement that you client is made to wait for hours outside and that we create ugly scenes, I totally deny the same. He never informs me or my parents about his proposed visits and always takes us by surprise." 81. In the third letter dated 30.05.2006, the appellant has stated http://www.judis.nic.in as hereunder:- "The visitation rights can be once a week for a period of half an hour. My understanding of the 'visitation' rights is that you may visit the child at the place that the child is presently residing - in this case at my parent's house at a specified time of the week and for a fixed period. It does not entail you to take the child out of the house, particularly against the will of my parents, who are in-charge of the child in my absence ie, when I go to work. Ever since my last reply to your lawyer dated 17.05.2006, which has been duly received on 18.5.06, I have made a record of your visits to my parent's house. They are as follows: "18.05.06 Visit at 6.20 pm, take the child out for a walk, return at 7.30 pm despite being told by the nurse not the take the child out. Nurse accompanies the child. 20.05.06 Visit at 5.30 pm, informed that the child is asleep, you leave 21.05.06 Visit at 10.40 am, take the child out in the car to the shop Odyssey at Adyar, despite being told by the nurse not to do so, for a period of 1 hour, 20 mts. Nurse accompanies the child. 23.05.06 Visit at 5.15 p.m.-nurse inform you that the child is asleep, you leave saying that you will return. 24.05.06 Visit the child a 5.30 pm, take the child out to the beach in the car, despite being told by the nurse that http://www.judis.nic.in you should not take the child out. Nurse accompanies the child. 27.05.06 Visit the house at 5.15 pm, nurse tells you that the child is asleep. You leaave 28.05.06 Visit the child at 10.40 am, despite being told that the child should not be taken out you take the child to the Children's park and the Cancer Institute, in the car for a total period of 2 hours and 20 minutes. Nurse accompanies the child. From the above record you will yourself see that all your visits are unscheduled.

Result 10
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parvati vs State & Ors
Honourable Judges P.K. Lohra
Date of Judgment: 20 April 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 52.27
   
   
   

As biological mother, her concern for the well-being of her children and to meet them periodically cannot be under-played. Section 21 of the Act of 2005 envisages with clarity and precision that in appropriate cases, Magistrate at any stage of hearing of the application for protection order or any other relief under this Act, can grant temporary custody of any child or children to the aggrieved person or to the person making an application on her behalf. Merely because petitioner is having her different place of abode cannot be a significant factor for denying her right to visit her children. This Court in Jyoti @ Rashmi (supra) upheld the order passed by Magistrate and allowed the mother visitation rights. In Kalyan Roy (supra), Calcutta High Court has allowed visitation rights to mother and held: (5 of 7) [CRLR-1258/2015] "However, the opposite party/mother should not be deprived of the visiting right, as the child also should develop her relationship with her mother and enjoy the love and affection of her mother. I am informed by Learned Counsel representing both the parties that the opposite party/mother may meet the minor daughter in the residence of one Somnath Chatterjee who happens to be the husband of sister-in-law of the opposite party and who resides at Suri Housing Complex. This visiting right of the opposite party/wife can be exercised on 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month and the petitioner/husband must bring the minor daughter to the house of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee on the dates fixed by the court. In view of my above findings, the judgment and order passed by Learned Sessions Judge, Birbhum on May 18, 2015 in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2015 by reversing the order passed by Learned Magistrate is hereby set aside. The minor daughter Manisha will remain in the custody of the petitioner/father temporarily till appropriate order of custody is passed by Learned District Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act. The opposite party/mother will have the visiting right to meet the minor daughter on 2nd and 4th Wednesday of every month in between 9 O'clock in the morning and 5 O'clock in the evening in the house of Mr. Somnath Chatterjee who is residing at Suri Housing Complex in the District of Birbhum.

Result 11
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 59
Relevancy Score: 51.82
   
   
   

Those entries were written in the year, 2004. Mutual decree for divorce was granted on 10.11.2009, with visitation rights. 78. Contention that the mother had already expressed her desire http://www.judis.nic.in to bring up the child, as a single parent and thus, written in her diary, cannot be a reason, to deny custody to the mother, for the reason that she no longer remains to be a single parent. After divorce in 2009, she got remarried in the year 2010. Child Siddarth has been brought by the mother and stepfather, maternal grand parents, all along. 79. In so far as the denial of visitation rights and letters exchanged between the parties, that on 10.05.2006, the appellant had written a letter to the learned counsel for the respondent, even before filing of the petition for divorce by mutual consent, but stated that the custody of the minor child will be with her. Expressing opinion over custody of the child will be with the mother, would not amount to denial of visitation rights. As mother, she is entitled to state so. In her letter dated 10.05.2006, she has stated that the respondent can have visitation rights once in a week for half an hour. 80. In the subsequent letter dated 17.05.2006, sent by the appellant to the learned counsel for the respondent, she has stated that, "as far as the visitation rights are concerned she has suggested that the http://www.judis.nic.in respondent may visit the child once in a week for a duration of half an hour. Timing can be fixed after discussion. In the said letter, she has also made it clear that the respondent did not visit the child from September 2004 to July 2005. She has denied the allegation that the respondent was made to wait outside." For brevity, the relevant portion of the letter dated 17.05.2006, is reproduced:- "Further I wish to inform you that your client did not visit the child from September 2004 to July 2005. From July 2005 he was making sporadic visits - approximately once a week. These visits would last about half an hour and they were all done in an absence. Now after you have issued the legal notice dated 13.02.2006, he is making daily visits and sometimes twice a day. These visits are also in my absence.

Result 12
Karnataka High Court
Smt. Anupama V Nadagouda vs Sri. Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane
Honourable Judges B. Veerappa
Date of Judgment: 14 December 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 18
Relevancy Score: 51.55
   
   
   

Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent, the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights. 36. The concept of visitation rights is not fully developed in India. Most courts while granting custody to one spouse do not pass any orders granting visitation rights to the other spouse. As observed earlier, a child has a human right to have the love and affection of both the parents and courts must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of her/his parents. 37. This is a classic case, where both parents shall have to act in a manner without detrimental to the interest of the child. As such, the Family Court was justified in rejecting the plaint/petition as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Accordingly, we pass the following order: ORDER i) Miscellaneous first Appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as being devoid of merits; ii) The impugned order dated 4.2.2021 passed in G & WC No.337/2018 by the learned I Additional Principal Family Court, Bengaluru, allowing the application I.A.5 filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby upheld; iii) The appellant-wife is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) before the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks for wasting public time of both the Family Court and this Court, and produce an acknowledgement for having deposited the said cost. iv) If the appellant fails to deposit the abovesaid cost within the time stipulated, the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority is at liberty to initiate contempt proceedings in accordance with law.

Result 13
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 51.53
   
   
   

However, the psychiatrist in the report, has clearly mentioned that same, that whenever the child wanted to avoid any question or not interested to answer the question, he used to shake his shoulders. Appellant has contended that the Presiding Officer has mistook the child's body language. The then presiding officer had been very lenient towards the father and his counsel, for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, she was constrained to file a transfer petition. 11. Appellant in her counter affidavit, has further contended that the child never stayed with the father, except as an infant for two http://www.judis.nic.in months, ie., from 15.7.2004 to 26.9.2004. During the year 2008-2009, the maximum time spent by the father with the child was for about three hours between 10.00 a.m to 1.00 p.m and that too, for very few visits only. The child refused to go with the father from the last week of March' 2009, despite persuasion. Even in the Child Care Centre, the child refused to move or talk with his father. On 3.1.2013, when the Presiding Officer spoke to the child alone in the chamber, the child has clearly informed that he is not interested to talk or move with his father and clearly expressed his willingness in clear language to the court that he wants to be with his mother. 12. Appellant-mother has further contended that she along with her husband and her son, Siddarth, are living peacefully. Her husband's children are studying in Australia and Pondicherry respectively and therefore, her the attention and care are exclusively, towards her son, Siddarth only. It was clearly agreed between the parties that mother should be entitled to have permanent custody of the child and father is entitled only for visitation rights of the child, subject to willingness of the child. If the child is not interested to go or see his father, then he has http://www.judis.nic.in no legal right to force the child to come and live with him. She also cannot be forced the child to go against his wish and will. Welfare of the child is the paramount consideration for deciding the custody, as well as, visitation rights of the child. The petition to modify the decree of divorce, has been filed only to harass the appellant-mother and hence, she prayed to dismiss the petition.

Result 14
Delhi High Court
Kinri Dhir vs Veer Singh
Honourable Judges V. Kameswar Rao
Date of Judgment: 24 March 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 20
Relevancy Score: 51.22
   
   
   

34. There cannot be any dispute as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Amyra Dwivedi (supra) that the child has a right to love and affection of both the parents which supersedes the privilege of having access to the child of both the parents. 35. Similarly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court also in the case of Pradeep Santolia & Ors. v. State & Anr. WP(Crl.) 3294/2018 decided on October 29, 2018 held that the child's ties with father should not be completely and perpetually stopped to ensure a healthy emotional quotient and a robust psychological growth of the child, for which the affection of both the parents would be necessary. 36. Though, many judgments have been referred to by both the parties, this Court is of the view, it may not be necessary to deal with all the judgments at this interim stage as the broad proposition has already been noted by this Court in the above paragraphs. 37. I find from the record when the impugned order was passed, the respondent was residing at C-99, Second Floor, Defence Colony i.e., the same premises where the petitioner is also staying, and the Trial Court has granted the benefit of visitation to the respondent for meeting the minor child in the said property only. It was stated by Ms. John that the petitioner has moved out of the property because the respondent could not have the benefit of normal unsupervised visitations where the respondent and the child can have unhindered interaction. Be that as it may, noting the tender age of the minor child, who is less than three years old, this Court modifies the impugned order dated October 28, 2021 and directs as follows: I. The visitation hours given to the respondent by the Trial Court for 2 hours daily may not be conducive for the child of that tender age. Appropriate shall be instead of daily, the respondent shall have visitation rights on alternate weekdays i.e., Monday, Wednesday and Friday on which days he will collect the child at 6 PM and return the child to the petitioner at 8 PM on the same day. II. On Sunday, the respondent shall collect the child from the petitioner at 11 AM and return the child at 5 PM on the same day. III. The above visitation shall be subject to the respondent residing in the same property i.e., C-99, Defence Colony.

Result 15
Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Suleman Kidwai Thru. His Mother ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ...
Date of Judgment: 7 December 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 51.14
   
   
   

Keeping in view the entire factual matrix and rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is the mother of corpus and also bearing in mind that the feeling of love and affection of each parent, whether father or mother, for his/her children, be respected, I deem it proper that, visiting rights may be provided to petitioner to meet her son. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amyra Dwivedi Vs. Abhinav Dwivedi and Ors.; MANU/SC/0535/2020 while considering the importance of visiting rights has held as under:- "4. In Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan 2020 AIR 577, this Court held that the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration in matters relating to custody of children. In this context, we may refer to paragraph 22 of the judgment, which reads as follows: "A child, especially a child of tender years requires the love, affection, company, protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every re-union may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what matter the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to one parent the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with any one of the two parents. It is only in extreme circumstances that one parent should be denied contact with the child. Reasons must be assigned if one parent is to be denied any visitation rights or contact with the child. Courts dealing with the custody matters must while deciding issues of custody clearly define the nature, manner and specifics of the visitation rights."

Result 16
Madras High Court
Vijay Samuel Wilson vs Buvanalochini
Honourable Judges V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 5
Relevancy Score: 51.11
   
   
   

The time of two hours provided by the Family Court to enable the petitioner to visit the three minor children is grossly inadequate, as, within such short span of time the petitioner may not have adequate bonding with the children. Even in the Joint Memo filed by the petitioner and the respondent in O.P. No. 2084 of 2017 it was agreed that the petitioner can take the children with him for atleast three hours and hand over them to the respondent. On the other hand, the present order passed by the Family Court had virtually curtailed the visitation hours to the father which is illegal and improper. The Family Court has not appreciated the legitimate prayer of the petitioner to have the visitation right of the minor children atleast on Saturday and Sunday. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Family Court and to allow the Civil Revision Petition. 20. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is not the intention of the respondent to prevent the petitioner to see the minor children. At the same time, the visitation right https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis sought by the petitioner every week would adversely affect the academic prospects of the minor children. The children are imparted with various extra-curricular activities such as tennis and key board and they have to attend such classes during Saturdays and Sundays. The learned counsel also submitted that the children have excelled themselves in such games. Even though the petitioner was fully aware of the same, he seeks visitation right during the weekend which would adversely affect the classes of the children. Any disturbance or discontinuance of their regular classes would adversely impact them in pursuing the courses. Therefore, it is submitted that the visitation right granted by the Family Court would adequately fulfil the demands made by the petitioner and therefore, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. 21. Pending this Civil Revision Petition, this Court on 30.08.2023 passed the following order:- "The learned counsel on either side, the petitioner and the respondent and the children are present.

Result 17
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 20
Relevancy Score: 50.62
   
   
   

4. The petitioner natural father is a busy stockbroker allegedly carrying on his business with the aid of online http://www.judis.nic.in computer but it cannot be said that in the course of his business, he has not to remain out of residence for attending his office and other business engagements. 5. The apprehension expressed against the second husband that he might poison the mind of the child and create ill will towards the natural father is not borne out from the evidence on record. On the contrary, the second husband in his deposition has made statements evincing a very cooperative and humane attitude on his part towards the problem of the estranged couple and the child. We find that apprehension expressed against the second husband is without foundation. The parents of the child have separated by mutual consent without making any vicious allegation against each other. They also agreed under the express terms of the consent decree of divorce to take responsibility of bringing up their child as her joint guardians. This gesture of decency and cooperation in jointly looking after the child has to continue. In this mutual agreement of separated couple, on behalf of the second husband, it is assured to us that he would continue to give his unreserved cooperation and help and would do nothing as to spoil the relationship or intimacy of the child with the natural father. 6. The visitation rights given to the natural father, in the present circumstances, also do not require any modification because with the passage of time, the growing http://www.judis.nic.in child should eagerly wait for the company of her father as a happy and enjoyable moment rather than treat it as a part of empty ritual or duty. To make visitation rights of natural father effective and meaningful for proper growth of the child, active cooperation of both the parents and her stepfather is expected and we hope it would not be found wanting from any one of them. 7. Since the mother of the child is now married to a famous cricketer, as and when she leaves the country on tour with her husband during school days or vacation period of the child without taking the child with her, instead of leaving the child to the care and custody of some other member of the family, the custody of the child during her absence from her home shall be given to the natural father."

Result 18
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 64
Relevancy Score: 50.5
   
   
   

Please take notice that our Client will he wing a Petition for directing you to implement the order dt 26.04.2012 by producing the child before the Court and also seek custody of the child giving you visitorial rights. Please take notice that your conduct is clearly in breach of the conditions you agreed to in the order dt. 10.11.2009 passed in FCOP 3499 of 2009 regarding visitorial rights." 86. For the above, the appellant has sent a reply dated 11.05.2012, as here under: "With reference to the allegation that your client http://www.judis.nic.in had doubt in his mind about the said arrangement, my client wish to state that your client is very well aware of the fact that the child would not come along with your client because he distanced himself from the child ever since March 2009. Even on those occassions the child was brought to the child care centre at the instance of the then Presiding Officer, the child bluntly refused to talk with your client and not even looked at him/In spite of the fact that your client was alone with the child in the Child Care Centre. The following facts would reveal the real reason behind the child's resistance:- a) It is an admitted fact that the child has never lived with the father except as an infant for 2 months i.e., from 15-7-2004 to 26-9-2004. b) during the year 2008-2009, the maximum time spent by the petitioner with the child was for about 3 hours between 10.00 a.m to 1.00 p.m. that too for few visits only. c) The child refused to go with the father from the last week of March, 2009 despite persuation. From the above facts it is evidently clear that your client distanced himself from the child for more than three long years. The child is now aged about 8 years. It is common knowledge that a grown up child cannot be thrust in the hands of the father like an infant. If the boy refuses http://www.judis.nic.in or reluctant to go with the father, the mother is helpless and absolutely there is no meaning in blaming the mother for the boy's act. My client states that at most my client can orally persuade the child to go with the father but when the child is adament, mother is helpless and she has no right to compel the boy to go against his wish.

Result 19
Gujarat High Court
Jalpaben Prayagraj Rathod vs Prayagraj Natwarlal Rathod
Honourable Judges A.G.Uraizee
Date of Judgment: 16 June 2021
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 50.06
   
   
   

It is suggested that, instead of two orders working in the aforesaid manner, it would be convenient for the parties and the ward if the child is left with the mother on every Saturday and is picked up by the husband after 6:00 p.m. on Sunday For consideration of the case from the aforesaid angle, notice be issued returnable after two weeks. Direct service is permitted." 5. It is thus eminently clear from the aforesaid order that notice was issued for the limited purpose of aligning two orders viz.one under the Domestic Violence Act and other the interim order under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act. C/SCA/1503/2020 ORDER DATED: 16/06/2021 6. I have heard Mr. Pratik Jasani, learned advocate for the husband and Mr. Premal Rachh, learned advocate for the wife. 7. During the course of arguments, it has emerged that the relations between the husband and the wife are strained to an extent that at present there is no scope of any settlement between them. The minor son Om is residing with his father (husband) at Rajkot and pursuing his kindergarten education. 8. By virtue of the order passed under the Domestic Violence Act, the visitation rights are given to wife on every Sunday between 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m. at the house of the wife. On the other hand by interim order under section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, the wife is given visitation rights at Rajkot on first and third Saturday of every month and the husband is directed to pay the visitation expenses of Rs.3,000/- on each of such visit. 9. Mr. Rachh, learned advocate for the wife vehemently submits that the wife is given visitation rights on every Friday evening till the following Monday at Jamnagar where the wife resides. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Jasani, learned advocate for the husband stoutly resists this submission of Mr. Rachh and submits that the child is only around seven years of age as on today. Accordingly to his submission, he is admitted to a school for kindergarten education. He submits that the classes are conducted from Monday to Saturday and they get over at around 12 noon. He submits that if child is to be taken to Jamnagar every Friday evening till following Monday, his education would suffer and the same would put unnecessary exertion on the child.

Result 20
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
Relevancy Score: 49.81
   
   
   

In the decree of mutual consent itself both parties agreed for certain terms regarding custody and visitation of the child. Petitioner contented that respondent failed to comply the terms and conditions laid down in the decree, hence petitioner is forced to file petition for visitation right that is to visit the child in the Child Care Centre and even after that petition also respondent failed to permit the petitioner to visit the child as per the order the court hence petitioner is constrained to file this petition. Respondent contented that the child does not want to go with the father as per the terms and conditions of the decree, respondent never stand on the way of the petitioner to visit the child, and with a view to harass the respondent petitioner has filed this petition. 17. This petition is filed to modify the custody and visitation rights stated in the fair and decreetal order for divorce by mutual consent. Since the petitioner has come forward with this petition to modify the custody and visitation right of the child the welfare of the child is the http://www.judis.nic.in sole and single yardstick deciding custody of minor children and court has to use such yardstick for assessing merits of parties seeking custody. Respondent contented that contracting second marriage cannot disentitled the respondent having custody of the minor son. It is not denied by the respondent that after divorce by mutual consent she got remarriage and her husband is already having two grown up children. The second marriage of the respondent though a factor that cannot disentitle the respondent to the custody of the child yet is an important factor to be taken into account. It may not be appropriate to place the child in a predicament where they have to adjust with their step father with whom admittedly the child had not spent much time. 18. Both parties admitted that the age of the minor son is 11 years old at present. So the minor child is nearing his adolecent age. If the child of the petitioner is a girl baby then the female child always needs the help of her mother. Whereas in this petition the child is a boy who is at age of 11 years. Usually the boys when they reaches adolecent age they want to share lot of things with their father as a friend and the father also must treat the male child as his friend.

Result 21
Madras High Court
Vijay Samuel Wilson vs Buvanalochini
Honourable Judges V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 49.6
   
   
   

It is also stated that the reasons stated in the counter affidavit for denying visitation rights are invented to deny him visitation rights. In the rejoinder, reference was also made to the complaint given by the respondent against the petitioner before the All Women Police Station, Guindy and the written undertaking given by him on 08.01.2018 in which it was stated that only after obtaining order from the Family Court, Chennai, the petitioner can visit the children. However, when the petition for visitation rights is filed it is being unceremoniously opposed by the respondent. As a father, the petitioner is entitled to visit the children and therefore, he prayed for granting visitation rights. 8. Pending the proceedings before the Family Court, a Joint Memo was filed by the petitioner and the respondent on 25.01.2019 which reads as follows:- It is mutually agreed that the respondent shall bring her 1st and 2nd children, namely (i) Judah Samuel and (ii) Aaron Samuel on the first and third Sunday of every English calendar month to the Hotel Saravana Bhavan, JN Road, Ekattuthangal, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Chennai at 3.00 p.m. and hand over the said two children to the petitioner and he shall pick up his children and again he shall hand over the two children to the respondent at 6.30 p.m. to the same venue mentioned above (i.e) Hotel Saravana Bhavan, JN Road, Ekattuthangal, Chennai. It is therefore prayed that this Court may be pleased to accept this joint memo filed by both the parties and that this joint memo may be treated as part and parcel of the order for visitation of the children in the above matter and thus renjder justice. 9. Subsequently, on 16.11.2019, O.P. No. 2084 of 2017 filed by the petitioner was allowed by directing the respondent to resume the matrimonial life with the petitioner. 10. The petitioner thereafter filed IDOP No. 765 of 2020 under Section 10(1)(ix) & 10(1)(x) of The Divorce Act, 1869 to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty and adultery. 11. The respondent filed her counter affidavit in IDOP No. 765 of 2020 stating that the grounds relating to adultery are untenable and they are invented only for the purpose of getting a decree of divorce.

Result 22
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/18 vs Muktangshu Lahon
Honourable Judges Devashis Baruah
Date of Judgment: 27 September 2022
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 7
Relevancy Score: 49.38
   
   
   

Further to that, it was mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply that the statement of the respondent that he did not file any application for appointing him as a guardian of his Page No.# 8/18 child or for her property, and therefore, there was no scope of invoking Section 7 of the Act of 1890 which was highly misconceived and the said statement has been made in order to mislead this Court from the core issue involved in the instant proceeding. 12. While the aforesaid pleadings were continued, there were various miscellaneous applications filed before this Court. First of such miscellaneous applications was I.A.(C) No.913/2020 which was an application seeking alteration, modification, cancellation and/or vacating the order dated 03.01.2020 passed by this Court. As noted herein above, already this Court vide an order dated 03.01.2020, had stayed further proceedings of Misc. (G) Case No.59/2019 pending before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. To the said application, the petitioner filed her affidavit-in-opposition. From a perusal of the records of said Misc. Case, i.e. I.A.(C) No.913/2020, it reveals that there was no effective order being passed. 13. On 20.01.2021, an application was filed by the respondent as applicant seeking interim direction/order for granting visitation right to the respondent for visiting his child/daughter. By way of the said application, it was averred by the respondent as applicant that for more than two years, the visitation rights of the respondent has not been granted during the pendency of CRP(IO) No.5/2020, and as such, the applicant may be allowed/provided the visitation right to visit his daughter who has been residing with the petitioner/mother in Delhi on Sundays or any other holidays for 3 to 4 hours in a day and direct the petitioner/mother to connect the daughter with the respondent/father over telephone/video call Apps twice a week and direct the petitioner/mother to bring the daughter to Guwahati on every summer/winter holidays so as to get the love and affection of grandparents who could not travel to Delhi regularly on account of their old age and/or pass such order as may deem fit. 14. The petitioner filed an affidavit-in-opposition.

Result 23
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Kaur Saggoo vs Chiranjeev Singh Saini
Honourable Judges Raj Mohan Singh
Date of Judgment: 18 July 2018
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 2
Relevancy Score: 49.28
   
   
   

Respondent sought to produce on record DVD by way of moving an application in order to show abnormal, violent, brutal, impulsive, aggressive, abusive and immoral behaviour along with murder threats and suicidal tendencies of the petitioner. [5]. The Guardian Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 14.12.2017 allowed the respondent to place the DVD on record without giving any observation in respect of authenticity of the same. Admissibility, authenticity and genuineness of the DVD was left open to the parties to prove the same with reference to evidence at appropriate stage. No final observation was made on DVD as the same was required to be proved in accordance with law at appropriate stage. [6]. The Guardian Judge, Chandigarh vide order dated 11.04.2018 partly accepted the application of the petitioner observing that before allowing the petitioner to take interim custody of the minor child (if at later stage the Court comes to the conclusion that interim custody of the minor can be given to the petitioner) on trial basis the petitioner can be granted visitation rights to meet the child in order to ascertain the fact that whether the child feels comfortable in the company of the 3 of 12 petitioner or not and the said visitation rights will only suggest and help the Court in coming to the conclusion that whether she is entitled to interim custody of the minor or not. In view of aforesaid contingent order, the Guardian Judge, Chandigarh observed that the petitioner being mother of the child has an inalienable right to meet her child and she cannot be deprived of her right. The application was partly allowed to the extent of meeting the child and she was permitted to meet the child during pendency of the petition on every 1 st and 3rd Saturday at 2.00 p.m. in the court and was at liberty to meet the child between 2.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. [7]. Perusal of the aforesaid order would show that the right of the petitioner was acknowledged being an inalienable right. Before granting interim custody of the minor child, the Court devised the mechanism to ascertain whether the child was comfortable in the company of the petitioner or not? Precisely for the aforesaid exercise, the petitioner was allowed to meet the child on every 1st and 3rd Saturday between 2.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. [8].

Result 24
Madras High Court
Vijay Samuel Wilson vs Buvanalochini
Honourable Judges V. Bhavani Subbaroyan
Date of Judgment: 29 September 2023
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
Relevancy Score: 49.24
   
   
   

Considering the submissions made by the parties as well as the learned counsel on either side, this Court, hereby directs the Court below to maintain status quo, prevailing as on date, till https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 26.09.2023. In the meantime, the petitioner/father is directed to take the children on every Sunday morning, viz., 03.09.2023, 10.09.2023, 17.09.2023 and 24.09.2023 to the Church or mail, as the desires to do so and shall spend time within the children till 09.00 p.m. Post the matter on 26.09.2023 at 2.15 p.m." 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that curtailing the right of the petitioner/father to visit the minor children only for a few hours in a week is unjustified; the petitioner must be permitted to visit the children atleast for sufficient number of hours during the week ends; by citing the academic curriculum of the children, the respondent is unjustly curtailing the right of the petitioner to visit the minor children. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that visitation right shall be granted to the petitioner atleast from 6.00 p.m. of every Saturday to 6.00 p.m. on Sunday. In effect, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks visitation right in the following manner:- 1. Every week Saturday 6 p.m.to Sunday 6 p.m. In case of any inconvenience due to exams/tests/classes, it can be compensated on the preceding Friday 6 p.m. to Saturday 6 p.m. by one day prior notice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2. Annual Holidays - 1st Week of School Annual Holidays, 3rd and 4th Week €“ Friday 6 p.m. to Sunday 6 p.m. 3. Half yearly and Quarterly holidays - 1st Week of Half yearly and Quaterly holidays. \ 4. School declared national and festivals holidays occurring in Odd or even months, one of them chosen as per the Respondent's convenience. 5. Attending school events like sports day, annual day, cultural events and parent teacher meetings. 6. At the time of deciding higher studies €“ college/change of school, if any, petitioner to be consulted. 23. This Court has earnestly considered the rival submissions made by the parties. Undoubtedly, the petitioner, being the father of the three minor children, must be granted visitation right to visit them.

Result 25
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Gopesh Kumar Modi vs Dr. Ms. Jyoti Nath Modi
Honourable Judges Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
Date of Judgment: 8 February 2024
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 6
Relevancy Score: 49.21
   
   
   

No efforts were made by the husband to comply with the decree despite the repeated requests. The daughter is living with the wife and at no point of time; the husband has taken any care or bothered about his daughter. No expenses towards her education etc. were borne by the husband. It was the respondent/wife who has taken all possible efforts for upbringing of her daughter. Under these circumstances, learned Family Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion and rejected the claim of the husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty and on the contrary, has allowed the application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the wife. As far as irretrievable breakdown of marriage is concerned, he has placed reliance upon a judgment of three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangayakarasi vs. M. Yuvaraj AIR 2020 SC 1198 wherein it was held that the marriage cannot be dissolved on the ground of long period of continuous separation where it involves normal wear and tear of marital life, future of the child and more particularly when a petition for restitution of conjugal rights are also filed simultaneously. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 10. Initially a divorce petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was filed on the ground of cruelty. Several allegations are made by the husband against the behavior of the wife with him as well as his parents. The ground of professional rivalry was subsequently taken by way of amendment, which was turned down. In the present case, both the husband and the wife are doctors by profession. Their marriage was solemnized in the year 1995 according to the Hindu rites and rituals and out of the wedlock, a girl child was born in the year 2000. The husband/appellant is a senior Nephrologist and the respondent/wife is a Gynecologist. Presently both of them are working at Bhopal in different hospitals. It is not disputed that the husband has gone to the USA for fellowship initially for two years which was subsequently extended for three years. He came back to Bhopal and joined Samarpan Hospital Shahpura, Bhopal and since then he is working at Bhopal. The record indicates that the father of the appellant/husband was suffering from Cancer since 2005 and he passed away in the year 2012 owing to the same disease.

Result 26
Gujarat High Court
Sejalben Arpit Shah W/O Arpit ... vs State Of Gujarat
Honourable Judges J.B.Pardiwala, A.C. Rao
Date of Judgment: 9 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 49.17
   
   
   

Patient is telling that in­laws not taking care of female child & not giving proper food to child. MSC Eye contact - established - maintained. R/SCR.A/1022/2019 JUDGMENT Mood - Good Speech - relearent Thought - Normal No suicidal intention. No death wish. No delusion. Perception Cognition Normal Intact Judgment Intelligence Conclusion. ž¢ Patient is completely fit to have custody of female child. Patient not having any mental fitness problem according to OT assessment. ž¢ Thus, patient is Fit for daughter's custody. sd/­ Dr. Prakruti Patel 28/3/19 6. The entire file containing various other reports of the tests has also been placed before us for our perusal. 7. It appears from the aforesaid reports that the writ­applicant is absolutely fine and she is not suffering from any mental disorder as alleged by her husband i.e. the respondent no.3. The husband is a practicing Chartered Accountant. He has lot of complaints against his wife as regards her over­all behaviour at home. According to the husband, the writ­applicant is not a good mother as she is not taking good care of her daughter. It is also the case of the husband that the writ­applicant at times behaves in a abnormal manner and once she also threatened to throw away the minor daughter from the balcony of their house. According to the husband, this episode was witnessed by the neighbours. It is the case of the husband that the writ­applicant walked out of her matrimonial home for no good reason leaving behind her minor daughter. It is also the case of the husband that the minor R/SCR.A/1022/2019 JUDGMENT daughter is being taken care of by his parents. According to the husband, the minor daughter is absolutely safe at his house and his parents are taking good care of his minor daughter. 8. We tried our best to persuade the parties to reconcile atleast in the interest of their minor daughter. However, after talking to them individually, including the father of the writ­applicant, it appears to be a case of an irretrievable breakdown of marriage. We do not see any ray of hope of reconciliation between the parties. In such circumstances, we are left with no other option, but to decide this application on merits.

Result 27
Madras High Court
Dr.Nithya Vidyaprakash vs B.Suresh Babu
Honourable Judges R.Banumathi, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 15 March 2010
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 12
Relevancy Score: 49.16
   
   
   

In 2005, at the time when parties have entered into compromise, both Appellant and Respondent were single and their only focus was their relationship towards minor Rahul born out of the lawful wedlock. Now the circumstances have changed. Either the parties are pursuing their career or that some other relationship have set in deviating focus of their love and affection. 28. Before we elaborate upon the changed circumstances, we may also note the conduct of the parties. As pointed out earlier, the Respondent-father was given visitation rights for two consecutive weeks. The visitation rights of the father as per the memo of compromise read as under: "3) (a) The father shall have access to the child for two consecutive week ends viz., first week end commencing on Friday evening 6 P.M. till Sunday Evening 6 P.M. (b) and the second week end will commence on Saturday morning at 8.45 A.M. till Sunday Evening 6 P.M. (c) During the third week end, the child will be retained by the mother (d) During the gap between the end of second week and the commencement of the first week and, the father shall have the right to take the child on a Wednesday directly from the School and retain the child till 7 P.M. 4) During vacation i.e., quarterly, half yearly and summer vacations, the father shall have the custody of the child for the first half of the holiday and the mother will have custody for the second half of the holidays. 5) The father undertakes to pickup the child and also drop him back at the agreed timings." 29. As per the above terms of compromise, the Respondent - father shall have the child for two consecutive week ends. It is also clear from the terms of compromise that between the end of second week and the commencement of first week, the father shall have the right to take the child on Wednesday directly from the School and retain the child till 7.00 P.M. As per the terms of compromise, the Respondent was exercising his visitation rights without much difficulty till the Appellant moved to Secunderabad. After securing job in Secunderabad, the Appellant had taken the child also along with her to Secunderabad, of course, after intimation to the Respondent.

Result 28
Madras High Court
The vs 25 Of The Guardians And Wards Act
Honourable Judges K.Kalyanasundaram
Date of Judgment: 22 October 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 3
Relevancy Score: 49.15
   
   
   

Thus the articles and belongings of the husband and wife are retained by the husband and wife and none of the articles belongs to wife or husband is available with the other. (iv)The husband and wife have agreed to withdraw the followings cases filed by them respectively. (i) Child custody O.P. In 314/2017 filed before the Hon'ble High Court by the husband (ii) F.I.R registered in R1 P.S Cr.No.493/2017 (iii) Maintenance case in M.C.No.65/2017 filed before the Family Court, Chennai by the wife. (iv) Domestic violence case in D.V.C.No.74/2018 filed before XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and also if any other complaints given against each other. The parties hereto will take all sincere steps to withdraw the cases and both the parties will co-operate with each other for such withdrawal. http://www.judis.nic.in (v)It is agreed by the parties that the only child begotten out of the wed-lock between the husband and wife is a female child. Hence it is agreed that wife has to retain the custody of the minor child Aditi Sashi, aged about 10 years. The Husband hereby agrees that he has no objection for keeping the custody of the minor child by his wife. The husband has every right to visit the child as and when he wishes to meet his daughter. The wife and daughter are now settled at Bangalore, considering the same the husband agrees to visit the child at Bangalore. The husband has to give prior intimation to his wife about his visit so as to facilitate the visiting the child by husband. If the child is willing to go along with the father to Chennai for a temporary visit the wife will not object to it and the father has to bear the costs. The wife undertakes not to cause any hindrance or obstruction to the husband from visiting the child. It is specifically agreed between the parties hereto that both the parties will not speak ill of other to the child. (vi) The husband hereby agrees to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per year to his child for providing school education to his daughter. The Balance amount towards the education of the child has to be borne by he wife. The husband agrees to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the academic year i.e., 2021 onwards.

Result 29
Madras High Court
Dr.V.Sridevi vs Dr.C.S.Mani
Honourable Judges S.Manikumar, M.Venugopal
Date of Judgment: 29 April 2019
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 14
Relevancy Score: 48.73
   
   
   

Taking this court through the entries in the diary of the appellant, Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent/father submitted that, even before divorce, appellant/mother had made up her mind to bring up the child, only as a single parent and refused to have not only the child rights, as well as father's rights. At this juncture, he invited the attention to the diary extracts, wherein, it is stated to be recorded as hereunder: "Delivery and a possible divorce. The child may be a distraction. It is difficult to tell. I am of course prepared (since October 2003) about the fact. I will be a single parent caring for my child. He wants C.S.Siddhartha. I refused to have his father." http://www.judis.nic.in Referring to the entries in the appellant diary, he further added that the appellant never liked the father, from the incpetion, but denied visitation rights of the respondent/father. 34. Inviting the attention of this court to the letter, dated 17.05.2006 of the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent/father submitted that the appellant was restricting, even the number of hours of visitation, ie., only for half an hour and in this context, referred to another letter dated 30.5.2006. According to him, with half an hour time, respondent/father, cannot be expected that love and affection, be developed by the child towards his father/respondent and thus the appellant has been preventing the respondent/father from exercising his visitation rights. According to him, the language in the notices of the appellant is nothing but, a premordial right of exercising right of custody of the child, exclusively with the appellant by herself, to the exclusion of father/respondent. According to him, if natural rights of the child, are restricted, by brainwashing, it is not in the best interest of the child. http://www.judis.nic.in 35. Learned counsel for the respondent/father submitted that the attitude of the appellant/mother, in preventing the father, from exercising his visitation rights, could be deduced and that she has acted, not only detrimental to the interest of the child, but also against the interest of the natural father, and thus created an imbalance between father and child.

Result 30
Madras High Court
Niranjammal vs Rajeswari
Date of Judgment: 10 August 2017
Segment Number (Approximate Page Number): 9
Relevancy Score: 48.63
   
   
   

At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the first respondent €“ father, after obtaining divorce order, has left for Malaysia by leaving the minor child in the custody of his aged mother. It is also not in dispute that even before the divorce, the first respondent €“ father used to stay in India for six months and used to work in Malaysia for six https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis months. Though the petitioner has filed the original petition seeking the custody of her minor daughter against her former husband and mother- in-law, the first respondent had remained exparte. Admittedly, the second respondent €“ grandmother of the minor child was living alone at Paramakudi. It is also not in dispute that after the birth of the minor child, she has been in the care and custody of the petitioner/mother for 2 ½ years and at the time of filing of the divorce petition and after the disposal of the divorce petition, the minor child has been in the care and custody of her grandmother, the second respondent herein. 17. No doubt, in Ex.P.5 €“ divorce order, it has been stated that the petitioner has no objection for the child to be with her husband, but she reserved her right to see the child and that the respondent/husband has stated no objection for the petitioner to see the child in the school. 18. The learned Counsel for the second respondent would submit that since the petitioner has agreed and consented for the minor child to remain with the first respondent, the first respondent has given no objection for granting divorce and that the petitioner, after getting divorce, has taken a "U" turn and claimed the custody of the child, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis contrary to the submission made by her before the Family Court and that therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get the custody of the child.


Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is intended for informational purposes only and is designed to assist legal professionals, law students, and other professionals such as Chartered Accountants (CA), Company Secretaries (CS), and Cost and Management Accountants (CMA). Patodia Infotech Private Limited utilizes artificial intelligence (AI) to generate information based on various laws, acts of India, and judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts, and Tribunals of India. However, we do not make any guarantees regarding the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided.

Legal professionals are advised to independently verify the information and conduct their own research to validate its applicability to specific cases or situations. The contents of this website do not constitute legal advice, and reliance on them should be at the discretion and risk of the individual legal professional.

Patodia Infotech Private Limited hereby disclaims all representations and warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the contents. We shall not be liable for any loss or damage arising from the use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.

By accessing and using this website, you agree to indemnify and hold harmless Patodia Infotech Private Limited and its affiliates from any claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising from your use of or reliance on the information presented herein.

Information

  • Patodia Infotech Private Limited (CIN: U52609KA2017PTC103319) 15th Main, 17th Cross J P Nagar, 5th Phase Bangalore 560 078 Karnataka, India

  • +91 806 840 2226

Menu

Quick Links

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up to VakilAI’s monthly newsletter to get the latest updates.

We don’t send you any spam emails

Copyright © VakilAI | All Right Reserved


Copyright © 2021-2025 Patodia Infotech Private Limited, All Rights Reserved.