High Court Of Calcutta
BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA
ROHIT KUMAR MODWEL - Appellant
Versus
SUDIPA R.MODWEL - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 01/06/1995
GUARDIANSHIP - SECTION 25 OF THE GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT - EX-PARTE INTERIM ORDER - WELFARE OF CHILDREN - CUSTODY DISPUTE BETWEEN PARENTS - INTERPRETATION OF 'GUARDIAN' - NATURAL GUARDIAN - EMOTIONAL YEARNING OF CHILDREN - PROSECUTION OF STUDIES - BALANCE BETWEEN WELFARE AND RIGHTS OF PARENTS - TEMPORARY ARRANGEMENT - ACCESS RIGHTS OF FATHER - MAINTENANCE PAYMENT BY FATHER - JURISDICTION OF COURT TILL DISPOSAL OF CUSTODY PROCEEDING.
Fact of the Case:
Husband filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, alleging that his wife had taken away their two minor daughters and valuables from their matrimonial home without his consent. The wife claimed that she had taken the children due to the husband's physical cruelty and want of chastity. The trial court issued a notice to the wife to produce the children in court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the children were of tender age and had an emotional yearning to be with their mother. It also noted that the wife was extroverted in her movements and that the children were being made to withstand the hazards of frequent long journeys. The court further found that the husband was not in a position to provide alternative accommodation to the wife and children in Calcutta.
Issues: 1. Whether an ex-parte interim order of custody can be passed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act? 2. What is the meaning of the word 'guardian' in Section 25 of the Act? 3. What is the paramount consideration in a custody dispute between parents? 4. How to strike a balance between the welfare of the children and the rights of their respective parents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. An ex-parte interim order of custody can be passed under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act in exceptional circumstances, such as to protect the welfare of the child. 2. The word 'guardian' in Section 25 of the Act includes a natural guardian or even a de facto guardian. 3. The paramount consideration in a custody dispute between parents is the welfare of the children. 4. In striking a balance between the welfare of the children and the rights of their respective parents, the court should consider factors such as the emotional yearning of the children, the requirement of prosecution of studies, and the ability of each parent to provide a stable and nurturing environment for the children.
Final Decision: The court declined to interfere with the trial court's order refusing to pass an ex-parte interim order. It directed that the children should reside with their mother and prosecute their studies in their present school till the custody proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act was disposed of. The court also directed the husband to pay Rs. 1200/- per month for the upkeep and welfare of the children.
( 1 ) THE present revisional application is directed against Order No. 2 dated 8th September, 1994 passed by the learned District Judge at Alipore in Act VIII, Case No. 245 of 1994. By the impugned order the Trial Court has issued a notice upon the opposite party-wife, directing her to produce the minor daughters before that Court on 29. 9. 94. The petitioner, husband, initiated a proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act on the allegation that as soon as he left his house on 28th June, 1994 for a short trip out of the city and after his return on 1st July, 1994 the petitioner found that the opposite party and his minor children absent at his residence. He subsequently came to know that his wife along with the said children went to her father's house at Siliguri. There are further allegations and/or insinuation that the opposite parry, wife, had also taken away valuables from the residence at the time of departure and the further case that was made that the children born of the said marriage were reading at the material point of time in La-Martinere Girls' School in Calcutta. There was also apprehension expressed in the said proceeding that due to long absence from the School, their names might be struck off from the school register and their studies are threatened to be affected. The petitioner in the connected proceeding also made an application for interim order enabling the petitioner to have the custody of the said minor children.
( 2 ) THE fact of the case in short can be summarised as the parties to the present proceeding were married sometime on 14th October, 1984 at New Delhi according to Hindu rites and customs. After consummation of the marriage and out of the same two daughters, namely, (a) Rittika Modwel and (b) Urvee Modwel were born on 28. 11. 1986 and 30. 9. 1989 respectively. The matrimonial home of the parties were situate in the ground floor of premises No. 55/2; Bally gunge Circular Road, P. S. Ballygunge, in the city of Calcutta. The aforesaid daughters at the time of initiation of the proceeding for custody were reading in Class-II and Upper Nursery Class of La-Martinere School in Calcutta. The children have good performance in their academic prosecution. The entire controversy is raised because of sudden displacement of the said children from the city of Calcutta to Siliguri due to the unilateral act of the opposite party and without any intimation to the petitioner and/or his consent. The apprehension expressed in the said proceeding is that the education of the children is likely to be hampered. The trial Court directed production of the said children in the Court below on a given date but in the meantime the petitioner alleged that he was threatened with termination of his daughters from La-Martinere School because of their long absence from their respective classes. As the learned Court below did not pass any interim order and fears were expressed that names of the children of the petitioner might be struck off from the school register and this Court was persuaded to pass an interim order restraining the authorities of La-Martinere School from removing the names of the children born of this marriage from the school register. Thereafter the Court was made to exhaust other avenues to serve the opposite party and the opposite party was found to be avoiding service. This Court was made to direct the local police station where the opposite party resided to serve with notice even by radio message and this Court also gave direction for attendance of the said children in the month of October, 1994 to the school during the period when this Court remain closed. The opposite party moved the Vacation Judge of this Court and obtained stay of the order passed by this Court inclusive of restraint order on the authorities of La-Martinere School. After reopening of the Court the husband-petitioner made grievance of the same and this Court passed an order whereby the Principal of La-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.