Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Col. Ramneesh Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Sugandhi Aggarwal – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6137 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 28466 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2024
(A) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 – Sections 7, 9, 17 and 25 – Shared custody of minor children – Grant of – Up until this stage, custody of Minor Children has essentially remained with Appellant – Principal consideration of Court whilst deciding application for guardianship under Act in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction would be welfare of minor children – Stability of surrounding(s) of Minor Children is also a consideration to be weighed appropriately – Single Judge found Minor Children to be confident and well-groomed – No overt preference was indicated by Minor Children in respect to one parent over other – Minor Children were doing well in pursuit of their education and co-curricular activities whilst residing with Appellant – Court found Minor Children to be intelligent, confident, cognisant of pros and cons of their decisions and most importantly content /happy – Minor Children expressed their clear desire to reside with Appellant – Indian Armed Forces provides a robust support system to kin of its officer(s) so as to ensure minimal disruption in lives of civilian member(s) of an officer’s family – High Court has failed to appreciate intricacies and complexities of relationship between parties and proceeded to entertain allegations of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) on an unsubstantiated basis – Impugned Order of High Court set aside – Custody of Minor Children is to be retained by Appellant, subject to visitation rights of Respondent as granted by Family Court.(Paras 8, 12, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 16, 26, 27 and 28)
(B) Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) – PAS is a thoroughly convoluted and intricate phenomenon that requires serious consideration and deliberation – Recognising and appreciating repercussions of PAS certainly shed light on realities of long-drawn and bitter custody and divorce litigation(s) on a certain identified sect of families – Courts ought not to prematurely and without identification of individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’, label any parent as propagator and / or potential promoter of such behaviour – Such label has far-reaching implications which must not be imputed or attributed to an individual parent routinely – Courts must endeavour to identify individual instances of ‘alienating behaviour’ in order to invoke principle of parental alienation so as to overcome preference indicated by minor children. (Paras 20, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Vide Impugned Order High Court partly allowed appeal preferred by Respondent against an order dated 22.08.2020 passed by Family Court, whereby Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to Appellant and provided visitation rights to Respondent. Vide Impugned Order, High Court set aside Underlying Order and accordingly granted parties shared custody of Minor Children.
Findings of Court:
High Court was neither correct nor justified in interfering with the well-considered and reasoned order passed by Family Court granting custody of Minor Children to Appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Introduction
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal preferred by the Appellant seeks to assail the correctness of an order dated 11.10.2023 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (the “High Court”) in M.A.T. APP (F.C.) 132 of 2020 (the “Impugned Order”). Vide the Impugned Order the High Court partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondent against an order dated 22.08.2020 passed by the Learned Family Court, West, Tis Hazari Court (the “Family Court”) in GP No. 45/17 (Old GP No. 75 of 2015) whereby the Family Court granted permanent custody of minor children to the Appellant and provided visitation rights to the Respondent (the “Underlying Order”). Pertinently, vide the Impugned Order, the High Court set aside the Underlying Order and accordingly granted the parties shared custody of the Minor Children (defined below).
Factual Background
3. The facts and proceedings germane to the contextual understanding of the present lis, are as follows:
3.2. In December 2013, the Appellant having been promoted to the rank of Colonel in the Indian Armed Forces, was posted to serve in the Jammu and Kashmir. Accordingly, it was decided that the Respondent together with the Minor Children would reside in New Delhi. The relationship between the Parties deteriorated significantly and thereafter took a turn for the worst on 08.08.2015, forcing the Respondent to leave the matrimonial home for 1 (one) night. Upon returning the next day i.e. 09.08.2015, the Respondent found the residence locked, and the Appellant along with the Minor Children unavailable at aforesaid residence.
3.3. The Respondent was constrained to file (i) a missing children’s report on 19.08.2015; and thereafter (ii) an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (the “DV Act”) on 17.08.2015. Subsequently, the Respondent learnt that the Minor Children along with the Appellant were residing in Gulmarg, Jammu and Kashmir and were scheduled to move to Bikaner, Rajasthan in furtherance of the nature of the Appellant’s service. Aggrieved, the Respondent filed a petition under Section 7, 9 and 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 (the “Act”) before the Family Court seeking custody of the Minor Children on 21.11.2015. On the other hand, the Appellant filed a similar petition seeking custody of the Minor Children before the Learned Principal Jude, Family Court, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3.4. This Court vide an order dated 29.03.2017, transferred the custody petition filed by the Appellant before the Learned Principal Jude, Family Court, Bikaner, Rajasthan to the Family Court in Delhi. Thereafter, vide an order dated 16.10.2017, the Family Court granted interim custody of the Minor Children to the Respondent (the “Interim Custody Order”). Aggrieved, the Respondent preferred an Appeal before the High Court. Vide an order dated 06.12.2017, the High Court initially stayed the operation of the Interim Custody Order; thereafter vide an order dated 19.04.2018 granted the Respondent custody of the Minor Children on alternative weekends; and finally vide an order dated 01.10.2019, dismissed the appeal and vacated the interim orders observing inter-alia that the appeal was not maintainable.
3.5. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court challenging the correctness of the Interim Custody Order
Custody of minor children – Principal consideration of Court whilst deciding application for guardianship under Act in exercise of its parens patriae jurisdiction would be welfare of minor children –....
Custody of a minor must prioritize the child's welfare, with visitation rights structured to maintain relationships with both parents amidst ongoing parental conflict.
Allegations of adultery do not disqualify a parent from custody; the welfare of the child is paramount, necessitating psychological evaluation in custody disputes.
The paramount consideration in custody cases is the welfare of the children, not financial status or character allegations against a parent.
The welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in custody disputes, and the court must ensure judicial discipline and adherence to judicial discipline.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
