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

2017 Supreme(Cal) 653

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harish Tandon, J.
PURBAYAN CHATTERJEE - Appellant
Vs.
SANGHITA CHATTERJEE - Respondent
C.O. 2558 of 2016
Decided On : 30-03-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Biswajit Basu, Mr. Sharanya Chatterjee, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. A.K. Bhattacharya, Mr. S. Gangopadhyay, Advocates

The welfare of the child is paramount in custody disputes, and parental responsibility should be exercised with the child's best interests in mind.

Headnote:

Custody Dispute - Guardians And Wards Act - Section 25 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Guardians And Wards Act, 1950 - Section 25, Special Marriage Act, 1954 - Summary: The court addressed a custody dispute between warring parents, referencing Section 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. The court emphasized the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child and the importance of parental responsibility in determining custody arrangements.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a custody dispute between warring parents for their minor son, following their divorce by mutual consent. The father sought custody under Section 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act, alleging neglect by the mother. The court had issued interim orders and the father filed a revisional application challenging the custody order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the welfare of the child is paramount and that both parents were imposing their aspirations on the child without considering his interests. The court emphasized the importance of parental responsibility and the need to consider the child's well-being in determining custody.

Issues: The issues included neglect of the minor son, violation of custody arrangements, and the welfare of the child. The court also addressed the reluctance of the mother to allow visitation with the father and grandparents during weekends.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child and the importance of parental responsibility in determining custody arrangements. The court also considered the child's comfort and well-being in the custody decision.

Final Decision: The court modified the impugned order to allow the child to remain in the custody of the father or grandparents during weekends, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the child's bond with the larger family. The revisional application was disposed of with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

This is an unfortunate litigation between warring parents for custody of the minor son even after the divorce by mutual consent. The father of the child initiated a proceeding under Section 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act for custody of the child, which is admittedly with the mother for his betterment and welfare. The proceeding faced several round of litigation before the Trial Court as well as this Court and a contempt proceeding for violation of this order passed by this Court in an earlier revisional application is pending.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the petitioner is renowned musician and acclaimed such recognition in the society as sitar player. The father of the petitioner was also an amateur sitar player and learnt such skill under the tutelage of two legendary maestros namely Pandit Nikhil Banerjee and Ustad Ali Akbar Khan. The mother of the petitioner was also an artist of All India Radio and performed in Doordarshan on many occasions. The parties hereto, met in a concert and developed love and affection for each other and ultimately married under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 on 12th June, 2002. In the said wedlock a male child was born on 26th June, 2009, who is named Pratham Chatterjee and is currently seven years of age.

3. Subsequenly, the differences in such relationship cropped up and both the parties decided to live separately and ultimately agreed to dissolve the marriage by mutual consent and approached the District Judge, Barasat by filing Matrimonial Suit No. 1843 of 2012. The said suit was subsequently decreed on June 10, 2013 on the basis of their such consensus. It was averred in the said matrimonial suit that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs towards the lump sum as one time payment of alimony and cost of bringing up the minor son apart from a flat in Eastern High Apartment, Rajarhat, New Town with its existing furniture and fixtures together with the covered car parking space to be gifted to the opposite party for her comfort living. The statements made in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the said application for mutual divorce are the center of disputes in the present litigation wherein it was agreed that the minor son would remain in the care and custody of the opposite party till he attains majority and the petitioner will have a visitation right and right to take the child on holidays and vacations. The opposite party shall consult the petitioner with regard to all major issues relating to the minor child's education, health care and extra curricular activities so that the welfare of the child, which is paramount, is taken care of.

4. The application under Section 25 of the Guardians And Wards Act came to be filed by the petitioner alleging that the opposite party is neglecting the minor son and is not properly taking care of. It is alleged that she frequently changed her job and leads a life of a bohemian roaming here and there in the suspicious manner and did not spare any time with the minor child. The child used to spend weekend not only with the petitioner but his grand parents and showed his indifferent attitude when handed over to the opposite party in the evening of Sundays. The son was admitted into a heritage school and because of the ill treatment and behaviour of the opposite party his performance in the school deteriorated and both the parties were called by the teacher, who pointed out that though he has a creative mind and potential but he is not performing well and therefore to be handled with sensitivity. It is further alleged that though the said some of Rs. 30 lakhs was given to the opposite party for the upbringing of the child yet she withdrew substantial amount for her use despite fact that the other expenditures including education fees are paid by the petitioner. The opposite party is attempting to remove the minor son from the jurisdiction of the Court and have not been allowed to study in the heritage school and the opposite party is c























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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