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

2018 Supreme(P&H) 2228

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Raj Mohan Singh
CR No.5740 of 2015(O&M)
Lalit Ahuja
v.
Shikha Malhotra
{Decided on 29/05/2018}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Advocate

Custody of Child – Welfare of Child – Custody of girl child since child was one and half years is with father as per terms of divorce decree – Child has attained age of 8 years and is performing well in studies and extracurricular activities –Welfare of Child is with father – Claim of mother set aside – Even no visitation rights granted to mother

Headnote:(A) Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 – Custody of Child – Compromise Decree – Divorce – By Mutual Consent – Parents took divorce by mutual consent when child was aged one and half years – Custody of child since then is with father as per terms of divorce decree – Child has attained age of 8 years – Application by mother for custody of child under Guardian & Wards Act is not maintainable – As under O.23 R.3A CPC, the consenting order is not amenable to appeal or independent suit – Only remedy available to mother of child is to file an application in the same case – Ordered accordingly – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.23 R.3-A – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 S.13-B.

       (B) Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 – Custody of Child – Welfare of Child – Parents took divorce by mutual consent when girl child was aged one and half years – Custody of child since then is with father as per terms of divorce decree – Child has attained age of 8 years and is performing well in studies and extracurricular activities – Bothe the parents of child has remarried – Held; Welfare of Child is with father – Claim of mother set aside – Even no visitation rights granted to mother. (Para 9)

       (C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 O.23 R.3-A – Withdrawal of Suit – Compromise decree – Held; A consent decree operates as an estoppel and is valid and binding unless the same is set aside by the Court which passed the consent decree, by an order on an application under proviso to Rule 3 of Order 23 CPC. (Para 9)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, J.:- Petitioner has preferred this revision petition against the order dated 14.08.2015 passed by Guardian Judge, Ludhiana, whereby application filed by the petitioner for dismissal of the petition was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was married with the respondent on 26.02.2009 at Ludhiana according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Out of the wedlock, a daughter namely Shreya Ahuja took birth on 16.01.2010. Parties could not pull on their matrimonial ties. With the intervention of the respectables, both the sides entered into written compromise on 13.05.2012. A joint petition under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed. District Judge, Jalandhar vide judgment and decree dated 14.05.2013 was pleased to grant divorce under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. A joint statement was made by the parties that the minor child namely Shreya Ahuja who is in custody of the petitioner will remain with him and respondent will be having no concern with the minor whatsoever. Petitioner would be responsible for all the education, maintenance, upbringing and marriage of the minor Shreya Ahuja. All the claims regarding past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony have been paid to the respondent. Joint statement of the parties before the District Judge, Ludhiana on 14.05.2013 was to the following effect:-

“Our joint statement was recorded on 12.11.2012. We are Hindu by religion. Our marriage was solemnized on 26.02.2009 at Ludhiana as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. We lived together, but soon we discovered that we are not made for each other. From the wedlock, one female child namely Shreya was born on 16.01.2010 who is living with the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 will not claim the custody of the minor Shreya from the petitioner No.2, in future. The petitioner No.1 has no concern with the minor child from any corner whatsoever. On the other hand, the petitioner No.2 is fully responsible for all the education, maintenance, upbringing and marriage of the minor Shreya. All the claims regarding past, present and future maintenance and permanent alimony of the petitioner No.1 have been settled. The petitioner No.1 has received each and everything from the petitioner No.2. Now, no dispute is left between us. The petitioner No.1 will not claim any maintenance from the petitioner No.2, in future. Some of the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner No.1 were lying with the petitioner No.2. Similarly, some of the gold ornaments belonging to the petitioner No.2 were lying with the petitioner No.1. Now, as per settlement between us, we had entrusted the gold ornaments with Mr. Sunil Kapoor son of Sh. Subhash Kapoor, Mediator resident of Ram Gali Madhopuri, Ludhiana, who is a common friend of us. We have taken the gold ornaments from Sh. Sunil Kapoor. The petitioner No.1 has already received all her dowry articles and istridhan etc. from the petitioner No.2. Now, nothing remains due towards each other. On account of our contrasting nature, we could not live together. Hence we have been living separately since 16.07.2011. We have failed to persuade ourselves to live as husband and wife. We shall be bound by the terms and conditions as enshrined in the petition. Hence, we have resolved to part ways and seek a decree of divorce. Our marriage may be dissolved and a decree of divorce may be granted.”

3. After dissolution of marriage, petitioner has been taking due care of the minor. Petitioner has also re-married with Ashima Ahuja on 25.07.2015 after disclosing of his first marriage and custody of minor daughter. Ashima Ahuja has accepted minor Shreya Ahuja as her daughter. She has left her job for taking care of minor. Minor Shreya Ahuja is studying in one of the best schools in Ludhiana i.e. Saint Mary’s Kindergarten, B.R.S Nagar, Ludhiana. Petitioner has been taking due care in respect of welfare of the minor. Minor Shreya Ahuja has been made nominee in the in










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