2020 Supreme(Del) 1199
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Siddharth Mridul, I.S. Mehta, JJ.
Ashish Dubey - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi) & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1757 of 2019; Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12631 of 2019, 12684 of 2019, 12950 of 2019
Decided On : 21-01-2020
N. Hariharan, Advocate, Tanmaya Mehta, Advocate, Gaurav Kejriwal, Advocate, Sanjay Abbot, Advocate, H. Pillai, Advocate, Siddharth Singh Yadav, Advocate, Vandana Kejriwal, Advocate, Petitioner In Person, Kamna Vohra, Advocate, Priya Hingorani, Advocate, Sarvesh Chowdhry, Advocate, Ayushi Nagar, Advocate, Respondent No 3 In Person
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody battles, and both parents should have sufficient visitation rights unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to deny them.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Custody of Minor Children - W.P. (Crl.) No.357/2018, Crl.A. 127/2020, Civil Appeal No.1694/2019
Fact of the Case:
The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to produce the minor children before the Court to prevent them from being removed from the territorial jurisdiction. The father seeks interim visitation rights, while the mother opposes unsupervised visitation due to allegations of violence and abuse.
Finding of the Court:
The Court emphasizes the paramount consideration of the children's welfare and the need for both parents' love and care. It orders specific visitation arrangements to ensure social, physical, and psychological contact with both parents, without hindrance or supervision by the mother.
Issues: Custody and visitation rights of minor children, allegations of violence and abuse, appointment and credibility of the counselor, paramount consideration of children's welfare
Ratio Decidendi: The welfare of the child is paramount in custody battles. Both parents should have sufficient visitation rights, unless there are substantial and compelling reasons to deny them. The court may order specific visitation arrangements to ensure the child's contact with both parents.
Final Decision: The father is granted visitation rights on Saturdays and Sundays, with specific handover and return arrangements. The mother continues to have custody. The father is to ensure the children's participation in classes and activities without hindrance. The petition is partly allowed and disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Siddharth Mridul, J. - The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, essentially prays for a direction to Ms. Sara Carrierre Dubey, respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the ''mother''), the wife of Mr. Ashish Dubey, the petitioner herein, (hereinafter referred to as the ''father''), to produce Ms. Ananya Dubey and Master Nathan Karttikeya Dubey, the minor children of the estranged couple, aged about 10 years and 8 years respectively, before this Court or the Family Court, so as to prevent them from being removed from the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, as is alleged to have attempted in the past.
2. Mr. N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the father invited our attention to the decision rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (Crl.) No.357/2018 titled as ''Kiran Lohia vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.''; decided on 01.05.2018, to urge that, although, the present habeas corpus petition can not ordinarily be converted into a custody proceeding in respect of minor children; and the said question would statutorily and necessarily have to be determined by the Family Court concerned in an appropriate proceeding; however, an interim arrangement qua the visitation of the minor children, can in view of the said decision, be directed by this Court in the present proceeding.
3. In this behalf, our attention is further invited to the recent decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Crl.A. 127/2020 titled as ''Yashita Sahu vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.'', decided on 20.01.2020; to urge that, the role of the High Court in examining the aspect of custody of minor children, is premised on the touchstone of the principle of parens-patriae, and that the latter''s welfare, is axiomatically the paramount consideration.
4. It is, in this behalf, and backdrop that Mr. N. Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the father submits that, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Courts of Competent Jurisdiction, including the Family Court-in relation to the custody of the children-in view of the best interest of the children, an interim arrangement qua their visitation be directed, till such time that, the guardianship petition instituted on behalf of the mother, being G.No.15/19 titled as ''Sara Carriere vs. Ashish Dubey'' pending adjudication before the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, South, Saket, is adjudicated, in accordance with law.
5. As eloquently observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Yashita Sahu, (supra), the child is the victim in custody battles. A child requires the love, affection, company and protection of both parents. This is not only the requirement of the child, but is his/her basic human right. Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the love, affection and care or protection of any of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation, every re-union, may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child. Therefore, it is to be ensured that the court weighs each and every circumstance very carefully before deciding how and in what manner the custody of the child should be shared between both the parents. Even if the custody is given to the one parent, the other parent must have sufficient visitation rights to ensure that the child keeps in touch with the other parent and does not lose social, physical and psychological contact with anyone of the two parents.
6. We hasten to add, however, that one parent may in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, be denied visitation rights or contact with the child but only for substantial and for compelling reasons. In this behalf, we must also observe that, it is the case of Ms. Sara Carriere Dubey, the mother of the minor children of the estranged couple that, Mr. Ashish Dubey, the father is violent an