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) 300

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTISE ALTAMAS KABIR, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTISE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTISE CYRIAC JOSEPH
Mohan Kumar Rayana
Versus
Komal Mohan Rayana
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 9821-9822 Of 2009
Decided on : 06-04-2010

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Sr. Advocates, Ms. Madhavi Diwan, Ms. Shelly Baluja, Ankur Chawla, Ms. Sheely Satija, Ms. Kevic Setalvaya, Ms. Pallavi Langar (For M/S. Coac), Advocates. For the Respondent:Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Abhijit Das, Gopal Jha, Ravi Kumar Tomar, Advocates.

Headnote:

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - Section 6 - Family Court Appeal - Petitions involve the final stage of a custody battle on account of disruption and finally a breakdown of the marriage ties between the petitioner and the respondent - Petitioner and the respondent got married - A girl child, was born - Nuclear family, along with the mother of the petitioner - husband, resided together till when, for whatever reason, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home to stay with her parents - Held, There is no doubt that the petitioner is very fond and is very concerned about her welfare and future, but in view of his business commitments it would not be right or even practicable to disturb the status quo prevailing with regard custody - Conditions laid down by the High Court regarding visitation rights to the petitioner are, in our view, sufficient to experience the love and affection both of her father and mother - There is no reason why the petitioner, who will have access on holidays and weekends, cannot look after her welfare without having continuous custody of her person - As has repeatedly been said, in these matters the interest of the minor is of paramount importance to the Court which stands in loco parentis to the minor - Petition dismissed.

Judgment :-

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. These petitions involve the final stage of a custody battle on account of disruption and finally a break down of the marriage ties between the petitioner and the respondent.

2. The petitioner and the respondent got married in Hyderabad on 11th August, 2000. A girl child, Anisha, was born on 2nd March, 2002. The nuclear family, along with the mother of the petitioner - husband, resided together at Chamboor, Mumbai till July, 2004 when, for whatever reason, the respondent-wife left the matrimonial home to stay with her parents at Bandra. On 24th November, 2005, with the help of police personnel from Chamboor Police Station, she took away Anisha from the custody of the petitioner's mother. The petitioner recovered the custody of the daughter on 30th November, 2005 and this resulted in both the husband as well as the wife filing separate Custody Petitions before the Family Court in December, 2005. On 20th December, 2005, the Family Court granted weekend access/visitation right to the respondent-wife and by a subsequent order dated 15th September, 2006. the Family Court granted interim custody of the child to the petitioner-husband pending hearing and final disposal of the Custody Petition. The child remained in custody of the petitioner-father between November, 2005 and 2nd February, 2007, when the husband was directed to make over the custody of the child to the respondent-wife and since then she has been in the custody of the respondent-wife.

3. Two appeals being Family Court Appeal No.29 of 2007 and Family Court Appeal No.61 of 2007 were filed by the petitioner-husband and the respondent-wife respectively. The Family Court Appeal No.29 of 2007, which was filed by the petitioner-husband, was directed against the judgment and order of the Family Court directing that custody of the minor child be made over to the respondent -wife. Despite the finding that during the period when Anisha was in the petitioner's custody she had been well looked after and cared for and the petitioner had dutifully discharged his parental responsibility towards her. In the other appeal, the respondent-wife challenged the order of access made in favour of the petitioner-husband on every alternate weekend and to share 50% of the School Vacations with the petitioner. In fact, at one stage this matter also once appeared before us and certain specific directions were given regarding the manner of access of the petitioner-husband to Anisha. While disposing of the pending appeals, the Division Bench of the High Court had occasion to consider the legal and practical approach regarding custody of the minor in the light of the well-established doctrine that in these cases, the welfare and interest of the minor was the paramount consideration. Having dealt with the relevant provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, since the parents as also the minor is a Hindu and while passing the final order the Division Bench was fully alive to the fact that under Section 6 of the above Act the father is the natural guardian of the person of the minor during his minority. Despite the said legal position, the High Court, after carefully considering the various other aspects conducive to the child's welfare, and despite the interim order of custody in favour of the petitioner-husband, chose not to interfere with the order of the Family Court and directed that the custody of minor Anisha should continue to be with her mother, the respondent herein, and that sufficient access provided to the petitioner-father would meet the ends of justice. The petitioner's prayer for Anisha's custody, therefore, was rejected and being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-husband has filed the instant Special Leave Petition.

4. On behalf of the petitioner-husband it was urged that the judgment and order of the High Court suffered from various infirmities. It was submitted that having found that Anisha had been well looked after during the period of











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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