Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Del) 836

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Aditi Bakht & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Abhishek Ahuja & Ors. - Respondents
CM(M) 47 of 2022 and CM Appl. 2627 of 2022 (Stay) and CM(M) 211 of 2022, CM Appl.11824 of 2022 (Stay)
Decided On : 03-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Arundhati Katju with Ms. Bhabna Das and Ms. Shristi Bor Thakur, Advocates, for the Appellant; Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Asmita Narula and Ms. Apoorva Maheshwari, Advocates, for the Respondent.

The judgment underscores the significance of judicial conduct, the avoidance of bias, and the consideration of reasonable apprehension of bias in transfer cases.

Headnote:
Guardianship - Family Court Order - Guardianship Petition no.8/2021 - 21.08.2021, 22.12.2021, 04.03.2022 - The court discussed the rights/access granted to the respondent father with the minor child, the petitioner's grievances, and the transfer of the case. The court set aside the orders and restored the guardianship petition to the Principal Judge, Family Court for fresh consideration.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order restraining the removal of the minor child from Delhi and sought transfer of the proceedings to another court. The respondent father was granted visitation rights with the minor child, which the petitioner contested, citing the child's dependence on the mother.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the conduct of the judge had created a reasonable apprehension of bias, leading to the setting aside of the orders and restoration of the guardianship petition to the Principal Judge, Family Court.
Issues: The issues included the visitation rights granted to the respondent father, the conduct of the judge, and the transfer of the case to another court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of judicial conduct, the need to avoid any appearance of bias, and the consideration of reasonable apprehension of bias in transfer cases.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders, restored the guardianship petition to the Principal Judge, Family Court, and provided specific visitation rights for the father, while also addressing the issue of the petitioner's travel and the release of passports.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. - CM (M) 47/2022 has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.12.2021 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, South-East District, Saket in Guardianship Petition no.8/2021 titled as Abhishek Ahuja v. Aditi Bakht insofar as restrain the petitioner from removing her minor child, namely, Anaaya Ahuja from Delhi. A further prayer has been made that order dated 21.08.2021 also be quashed insofar as it restrains the petitioner from removing the minor child Anaaya Ahuja from Delhi. The petitioner has also prayed for transfer of the proceedings in Guardianship Petition no.8/2021 titled as Abhishek Ahuja v. Aditi Bakht and all pending applications therein pending before Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned Judge, Family court, South-East District, Saket to any other court. A prayer has also been made for the release of Canadian passport bearing no.GA340868 held by the petitioner and Canadian passport bearing no. AM039545 held by the Petitioner's minor daughter Anaaya Ahuja.

2. While this petition was pending, the learned Judge, Family Court decided the Guardianship Petition No.8/2021 titled as Abhishek Ahuja v. Aditi Bakht vide order dated 04.03.2022 and granted the following rights/access to the respondent father with the minor child:

(i) The applicant/petitioner shall have visitation rights with the minor child on every Wednesday and Friday at his parents home from 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.

(ii) The applicant/petitioner shall also be entitled to overnight stay of minor child Anaaya at his parents home on every 2nd and 4th Sunday. On every 2nd and 4th Saturday, the applicant shall take custody of the minor child Anaayafrom the respondent/mother at 10.00 a.m. in the morning and shall handover custody of the minor child to non-applicant/ respondent on every 2nd and 4th Sunday at 6.00 p.m. respectively.

(iii) During long holidays, vacations extending more than two weeks, the minor child shall remain to be in the custody of the applicant/petitioner and his parents for three days and the petitioner shall also be entitled to travel outside Delhi along with the minor child likewise the respondent shall also be entitled to travel outside Delhi alongwith the minor child on such holidays/vacations when the minor child shall remain in the custody of the respondent.

(iv) During summer vacations, the minor child shall remain to be in the custody of the applicant/petitioner and his parents for a period of 15 days as per the convenience of the child and the petitioner will also be entitled to travel outside Delhi alongwith minor child. Here it is also ordered that during summer vacations when the minor child shall remain in the custody of the respondent, she will also be entitled to travel outside Delhi along with the minor child.

(v) On festivals, the petitioner shall be at liberty to get the minor daughter from 1.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.

(vi) On minor daughters birthday, the petitioner shall be at liberty to get the minor daughter from 2.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. On petitioners birthday, petitioners familys birthday, the petitioner shall be at liberty to get the minor daughter for four hours as per the convenience of the child.

(vii) The petitioner and his family members shall also be at liberty to drop, accompany and pick the child to and from her school on Thursday.

(viii) The petitioner shall also be permitted to attend all the meetings/occasions/celebrations at the minor daughters school including but not limited to parent-teacher meeting. The respondent shall share all the communications from the minor daughters school including but not limited to the curriculum, school schedule etc.

(ix) The petitioner shall also be entitled to have interaction through video call with the minor child for atleast 30 minutes everyday as per convenience of the child.

3. The petitioner mother aggrieved of this filed CM(M) No.211/2022 challenging the impugned order predominantly on the ground that the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 focused solely on