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

2019 Supreme(Del) 831

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. SISTANI, JYOTI SINGH, JJ.
D.S.G - Appellant
Versus
A.K.G - Respondent
Matrimonial Appeal (FC) No. 312 of 2018, Civil Miscellaneous No. 50248 of 2018, 2409 of 2019
Decided on : 26-03-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Yudhishter Sharma, Adv., Nishant Sharma, Adv.

The principle of shared parenting and the child's welfare are paramount in resolving custody disputes.

Headnote:

Custody Dispute - Family Law - POCSO Act - 28.07.2018, 16.11.2018 - The court discussed the provisions of the POCSO Act and the principles of shared parenting while considering the custody arrangement of the child. The court relied on the reports of independent counsellors and the child's expressed preference to live with the father, ultimately upholding the custody arrangement.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant challenged the custody arrangement of their 11-year-old daughter, alleging sexual abuse by the father. The Family Court had directed shared custody based on reports from counsellors and the child's expressed preference.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the child was comfortable with the father and denied the allegations of sexual abuse. It upheld the custody arrangement, emphasizing the importance of shared parenting and the child's welfare.

Issues: Custody dispute, allegations of sexual abuse, shared parenting

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the reports of independent counsellors and the child's expressed preference to live with the father, emphasizing the importance of shared parenting in resolving custody disputes.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the custody arrangement with no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT :

Jyoti Singh, J.

By way of the present matrimonial appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge an order dated 16.11.2018 passed by the Learned Family Court, whereby the Learned Family Court has directed that the custody arrangement of the 11 years old daughter of the parties would continue as decided by the earlier order dated 28.07.2018 wherein the interim custody of the child is to remain with the father for four days and with the mother for three days.

2. The relevant and necessary facts for the adjudication of the present appeal are that from the wedlock of the parties a girl child was born in the year 2007 and she is presently a little over 11 years of age. Marital discord occurred in between the parties and the respondent (father) filed a Guardianship Petition bearing No. G.P. No. 2266/2018, seeking custody of the minor child on the ground that the petitioner herein was suffering from mental illness and treated the child with cruelty and did not permit the respondent to meet the child.

3. The Learned Family Court vide order dated 13.07.2018 directed the appellant (mother) herein to remain present with the minor child on 18.07.2018. On 18.07.2018, the appellant did not appear nor was the minor child produced. An application for adjournment was filed on behalf of the appellant on the ground of illness of the child. A prayer was also made in the application for appointment of a counsellor/Child Specialist, to visit the residence of the appellant to counsel the child. Prayer for providing Protection to the female child was also made. On the said date, the respondent, brought to the notice of the learned Family Court that after the respondent had filed the guardianship petition, the appellant had filed a case against him under the POCSO Act. The Learned Family Court looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, perceived that the child was perhaps under pressure and therefore before forming any opinion, thought it fit to appoint a Counsellor to meet the child and submit a report as to the factual condition of the child. Learned Family Court accordingly appointed a Counsellor, attached to that court and directed him to visit the child and submit a report. The matter was adjourned for 19.07.2018.

4. The Counsellor submitted his report, after interacting with the child, in the presence of two female Sub-Inspectors. In his report, he brought out that the child did not complain of any bad behavior towards her by the father and in fact expressed a desire to stay with the father only. He also reported that the child was confident and was speaking without fear. On 19.07.2018, the child was produced in the court from Nirmal Chhaya, where she was sent, keeping her best interest in mind, for one night on 18.07.2018.

5. On 19.07.2018, the child was referred to another Counsellor Ms. Himali Anand who too gave a report that the child was more comfortable with the father and denied any misbehavior towards her. Even during the interaction with the learned Family Court, the child expressed her willingness to live with her father. On the basis of the report of the Counsellors, the custody of child was handed over to father till the next date of hearing on an undertaking given by the father, that at night, the child shall be kept with female members of the family.

6. On 21.07.2018, the learned Family Court gave the custody of the child to the mother for staying with her till 24.07.2018 and also directed that the child shall be handed over to the father in the evening of 24.07.2018 at 5:00 PM, at the residence of the father.

7. On 27.07.2018, being the next date of hearing before the learned Family Court, the mother requested for appointment of an independent child Counsellor for assessing the mental state of the child and had even suggested the name of Dr.Uzma Parveen, as a Counsellor.

8. The learned Family Court vide order dated 28.07.2018 directed that the custody of the minor child will remain with the mother from Saturday (after schoo



















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
whatsapp-icon Back to top