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

2006 Supreme(Cal) 198

High Court Of Calcutta
KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J.
SANJIB SAHA - Appellant
Versus
BIDISHA SAHA - Respondent
AGWA 3 Of 2005
Decided On : 03/31/2006

The jurisdiction of the High Court under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent extends to the entire State of West Bengal and is not restricted to the territory of the Presidency town of Calcutta.

Headnote:

GUARDIANSHIP - JURISDICTION - LETTERS PATENT, CLAUSE 17 - GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT, SECTION 3 - INTERPRETATION - JURISDICTION OF HIGH COURT UNDER CLAUSE 17 EXTENDS TO THE ENTIRE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE TERRITORY OF PRESIDENCY TOWN OF CALCUTTA - COURT CAN EXERCISE JURISDICTION IN RELATION TO A MATTER WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED AND CONSIDERED BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE.

Fact of the Case:

Husband and wife were granted a divorce by mutual consent. The terms of the divorce included provisions for the custody and maintenance of their daughter. The father filed an application under Clause 17 of the Letters Patent and Section 3 of the Guardians and Wards Act, seeking enforcement of the consent decree and alleging that the mother had denied him access to the child.

Finding of the Court:

1. The word 'infant' in Clause 17 of the Letters Patent includes a person who has not attained majority, and is not limited to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years. 2. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Clause 17 extends to the entire State of West Bengal and is not restricted to the territory of the Presidency town of Calcutta. 3. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for enforcement of a consent decree relating to the custody and maintenance of a child, even if such an application could have been entertained by the District Judge.

Issues: 1. Whether the word 'infant' in Clause 17 of the Letters Patent includes a person who has not attained majority. 2. Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court under Clause 17 is restricted to the territory of the Presidency town of Calcutta. 3. Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for enforcement of a consent decree relating to the custody and maintenance of a child, even if such an application could have been entertained by the District Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The word 'infant' in Clause 17 of the Letters Patent is not limited to a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, but includes a person who has not attained majority. 2. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Clause 17 extends to the entire State of West Bengal and is not restricted to the territory of the Presidency town of Calcutta. 3. The Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application for enforcement of a consent decree relating to the custody and maintenance of a child, even if such an application could have been entertained by the District Judge.

Final Decision: The Court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application for enforcement of the consent decree and appointed a Special Officer to facilitate meetings between the father and the child.

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the matters are taken up for hearing as application being GA No. 3152 of 2005 is off-shoot of the original proceedings being AGWA No. 3 of 2005. The parties hereto were husband and wife at one point of time. They were married on 26th april, 1993. There has been no issue, except a girl child Shrabasti Saha of their above marriage. However, the marriage did not survive for long and it ended with a decree of dissolution dated 10th March, 2003 on their joint petition filed on 2nd September, 2002. In the joint petition there were various terms and conditions, apart from mutual intention to severe their marriage tie. The above order for dissolution of marriage was passed under Section 28 of the Special marriage Act, 1954, by the learned Additional District Judge at Barasat accepting their terms and conditions mentioned in their joint petition. The parties thereto and herein, agreed as far as custody and maintenance of the said girl child who is now 8 years old are concerned, as follows : (a) The child Shrabasti Saha shall remain in the custody and care of her mother, the petitioner No. 2 and the said petitioner no. 2 shall take all steps to get the child admitted in a good school and shall look after the welfare, well being, health and education of the child and towards her proper nourishment. The parties have agreed further that all major decisions for the schooling, extra-curricular training, major medical issues, etc. concerning Shrabasti will be jointly discussed, as far as practicable, and whenever appropriate and found feasible, prior to final decision taken and executed by the petitioner No. 2. It is however made clear that in case of disagreement over any matter concerning the child the petitioner no. 2 mother shall take final decision. (b) The father of the child, the petitioner no. 1 will have the right to see and/or meet the child at her residence as and when required subject to the convenience of the child and her custodian mother, the petitioner No. 2. (c) The parties have agreed further that the petitioner No. 1 that is to say the father of the child Shrabasti shall have full time access to Shrabasti for a quarter of her time, that is to say if the petitioner No. 1 is in the same city as that of Shrabasti, the father will be entitled to keep the child with him at the weekend of every week or one day plus half of the period of long vacation however without disturbing the academic schedule and other preoccupied matter touching the well-being of the child and with the consent of the petitioner No. 2. (d) The petitioner No. 1 agrees to return the child to her mother after meeting in the manner as aforesaid, on the agreed date and without causing any inconvenience to the child. That the petitioner No. 1 has agreed and undertakes to relinquish all his interest in the flat situated at 102 Ashirvad Apartments, 328, canal Street, under police Station : Lake Town, Kolkata-700048, in favour of the petitioner No. 2 by executing proper deeds in her favour at his cost well before the date of hearing this application and the petitioner No. 2 will continue to own the said flat as full owner thereof. (a) A sum of Indian Rupees fifty-five lakhs (US Dollar one Lakh Ten Thousand)will be paid by the petitioner No. 1 Sanjib saha to the petitioner No. 2 Bidisha Saha as full and final settlement of all her claims towards spouse maintenance, child support and child care. Out of the said sum of rupees fifty-five Lakhs (US Dollar One lakh Ten thousand), the petitioner No. 1 will pay to the petitioner No. 2 a sum of Rupees Forty lakhs ( (US Dollar Eighty Thousand) on or before signing of this petition by transferring the amount to Bank Account of the petitioner No. 2, the balance sum of Rupees fifteen Lakhs US Dollar Thirty thousand) will be paid to the petitioner No. 2 by the petitioner No. 1, on the date when the case will be heard, which sum the petitioner No. will be holding for the benefit of the child t























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