Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 2055
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. Nageswara Rao, M.R. Shah, JJ.
Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao - Appellant
Versus
Arathi Bandi - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No. 636 of 2018, 637 of 2018, 638 of 2018; Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 496 of 2013, 497 of 2013, 498 of 2013; Criminal Appeal No. 934 of 2013, 935 of 2013, 936 of 2013
Decided On : 25-02-2019
Sanjay Jain, Adv.
Headnote:
Contempt petition - Custody of the child - Challenged - Respondent handed over custody of child to petitioner who took him to United States of America - Petitioner was directed to permit visitation for atleast one month in a year to respondent-mother - Petitioner undertook to ensure visitation of mother by bringing Master to India as at that point of time, respondent was residing in India - Petitioner was also directed to give an undertaking by providing two sureties for compliance of order directing the petitioner to bring back child to India for purpose of visitation by the mother - Pursuant to order passed by Court parents of petitioner provided sureties by filing affidavits in this Court –Held, application has been filed for discharge of sureties provided by parents of petitioner as being unnecessary in view of changed circumstances - From material on record, it is clear that respondent has also shifted to United States of America - She has been working in U.S.A. and according to Parenting Plan, she is being provided with regular visitation rights - Initially, there was an apprehension about respondent not having a green card and possibility of her having to return back to India - From correspondence between petitioner and respondent it is clear that respondent has secured a job in U.S.A. and has settled down - There are no complaints about her not being permitted to visit child - Applications are allowed.
ORDER
1. The High Court directed the respondent to handover the custody of the child- Master Anand Saisuday Bandi to the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal challenging the said order of the High Court. Though the appeal was dismissed, the respondent did not comply with the directions issued for handing over the custody of the child due to which a contempt petition was filed by the petitioner.
2. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the respondent handed over the custody of the child to the petitioner who took him to the United States of America. The petitioner was directed to permit visitation for atleast one month in a year to the respondent-mother. The petitioner undertook to ensure the visitation of the mother by bringing Master Anand to India as at that point of time, respondent was residing in India. The petitioner was also directed to give an undertaking by providing two sureties for compliance of the order directing the petitioner to bring back the child to India for the purpose of visitation by the mother. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12th April, 2016, the parents of the petitioner provided sureties by filing affidavits in this Court.
3. This application has been filed for discharge of the sureties provided by the parents of the petitioner as being unnecessary in view of the changed circumstances. From the material on record, it is clear that the respondent has also shifted to the United States of America. She has been working in U.S.A. and according to the Parenting Plan, she is being provided with regular visitation rights. Initially, there was an apprehension about the respondent not having a green card and the possibility of her having to return back to India. From the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondent it is clear that the respondent has secured a job in U.S.A. and has settled down. There are no complaints about her not being permitted to visit the child.
4. In view of the above circumstances, we discharge the sureties provided by the parents of the petitioner.
5. The Applications are allowed.
