SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(SC) 256

2010 (2) Supreme 557
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi, Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
Vikram Vir Vohra — Appellant
versus
Shalini Bhalla — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.2704 of 2010
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.19935/2009)
Decided on : 25-3-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
In deciding custody of the child his welfare is of paramount consideration.

Headnote:(a) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 26 – In deciding custody of the child his welfare is of paramount consideration. (Para 21)

        (2008) 7 SCC 673; (1973) 1 SCC 840; (1998) 1 SCC 112; (2009) 1 SCC 42; AIR 1982 SC 1276 – Relied upon

        (b) Hindu Marriage At, 1955 – Section 26 – Custody of child – Visitation rights – Respondent mother getting a better job opportunity in Australia – Her autonomy on her personhood cannot be curtailed by Court on the ground of a prior order of custody of the child – With better career prospects she can look after the child n a better way – Father well settled in India and been living without the child and can visit him under his visitation rights already granted – No interference warranted. (Paras 25 and 26)

       Facts of the case:

        Te question involved in this case is custody of child under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

       Finding of he Court:

        No interference warranted.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Ganguly, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by the husband, impugns the judgment and order dated 27.07.09 of Delhi High Court which upheld the judgment and order of the Additional District Judge passed in relation to applications filed by both the parties under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter “the Act”). The impugned judgment permitted the respondent-wife to take the child with her to Australia.

3. The material facts of the case are that the parties to the present appeal were married as per the Hindu rites on 10.12.2000. A child, Master Shivam, was born to them on 05.08.02. In view of irreconcilable differences between the parties they had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Act and filed a petition to that effect and on 05.09.06 a decree of divorce on mutual consent was passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi.

4. As regards the custody of the child there was some settlement between the parties and according to the appellant the same was incorporated in paras 7 and 9 of the petition filed under Section 13-B (2) of the Act. Those paragraphs are as under:

“The parties have agreed that the custody of the minor son Master Shivam shall remain with the mother, petitioner No.1 who being the natural mother is also the guardian of the son Master Shivam as per law laid down by the Supreme Court of India. It is, however, agreed that the father petitioner shall have right of visitation only to the extent that the child Master Shivam shall be with the father, petitioner No.2, once in a fortnight from 10 AM to 6.30 PM on a Saturday. Petitioner No.2 shall collect the child Master Shivam from WZ-64, 2nd Floor Shiv Nagar Lane No.4, New Delhi-58 at 10 AM on a Saturday where the child is with his mother. And on the same day at by 6.30 PM, the petitioner No.2 would leave the child back at the same place with the mother i.e. petitioner No.1 and in case he does not do so petitioner No.1 the mother shall collect the child from petitioner No.2 on the same day. Both parties undertake before this Hon’ble Court that they would not create any obstruction in implementation of this arrangement. The petitioner No.1 shall take adequate care of the child in respect of health, education etc., at her own cost. In case the petitioner No.1 changes her address or takes the child outside Delhi, she shall keep petitioner No.2 informed one week in advance about the address and telephone nos. and the place where the child would be staying with the mother, to enable the petitioner No.2 to remain in touch with the child.

The petitioner No.1 has received all her Stridhan and other valuables, articles and other possessions, and nothing remains due to her from the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 and the child Shivam has no claim to any property or financial commitment from petitioner No.2 and all her claims are settled fully and finally”.

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 th






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top