KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
B. Veerappa, J.
Mr. Preetam A. Eklaspur and Anr. —Petitioners
versus
Smt. Vanishree and Ors. —Respondents
Writ Petition No.52377 of 2018 (GM-FC) C/W Writ Petition No.49517 of 2018 (GM-FC)
Decided on 8.1.2019
(B) Guardians and Wards Act, 1890—Sections 12 and 17—Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956—Section 6(a)—Custody of minor child—Grant of visitation rights—Parties have obtained divorce and residing in Canada—In deciding a difficult and complex question as to custody of a minor child, Court of law should keep in mind relevant statutes and rights flowing therefrom—But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions—It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch—Court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents—In selecting proper guardian of a minor, paramount consideration should be welfare and well-being of child—For more than seven years, child was with mother studying at Canada—Court must ascertain child’s wishes and a child is not a property or commodity—Such issues should be handled with love, affection, sentiments and applying human touch to the problem—Minor child is aged about more than 10 years and she has expressed her wishes to stay with petitioner - father before Family Court—Petitioner is entitled to custody of child—Visitation rights granted to respondent-mother. (Paras 22, 27, 30, 33, 40, 41 and 42)
Result: Writ Petitions allowed.
B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner–father filed Writ Petition No.49517/2018 against the order dated 30.10.2018 made in G & WC No.242/2018 on the file of the V Addl. Prl. Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru rejecting I.A. No.2 filed by him under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (‘G & W Act’ for short) and vacating the interim order dated 1.9.2018 and consequently directing him to return the child–Prisha Eklaspur to the custody of the respondent–mother, forthwith.
2. The petitioner–father filed Writ Petition No.52377/2018 against the order dated 7.11.2018 made in G & WC No.242/2018 allowing I.A. No.5 filed by the respondent – mother and directing the Station House Officer, Thalagattapura Police Station, Bengaluru to assist the respondent – mother in securing the custody of the minor child –Prisha from the petitioner – father as per the order dated 30.10.2018.
I. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
3. It is the case of the petitioner that his marriage with the respondent was solemnized on 30.4.2006 at Gadag as per the arrangement made by the elders of both the families and thereafter he took an assignment at Vancouver, Canada from his employer company in Bengaluru as the respondent was fond of staying abroad and he moved to Canada along with the respondent, leaving his parents in India. During many other occasions, the petitioner has also traveled to US and UK on long term work projects without any intentions of settling permanently there and has returned to India after the completion of the project. It is further case of the petitioner that after moving to Vancouver - Canada, the petitioner had added the respondent as a joint account holder to his salary account, giving her access to his salary account and given the respondent the full freedom and security financially and emotionally and there were several investments that the petitioner and his sister had made in the name of the respondent. The respondent insisted to take a job using her law degree but she had to first complete a course in English and the petitioner had completely borne the expenses of her course financially and supported morally to complete the same. Out of the wedlock, the female child by name –Prisha was born on 20.10.2008 in Canada and since Prisha was born in Canada, she automatically became a Canadian citizen, however, she holds a PIO Card (‘Person of Indian Origin’ Card).
4. It is further case of the petitioner that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was never cordial and the respondent used to regularly pick up some or the other quarrel with the petitioner and abuse him and his parents. The respondent abused and chased away the parents of the petitioner who had gone to Vancouver to help the respondent during the post-partum period. The respondent returned to India in 2009 since her dependent visa had expired and again after the same was extended, she moved back to Vancouver with the child after nine months, on obtaining fresh Dependent Visa in December 2009.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that only to prevent from multiple renewals of work permits during their multiyear job posting, at the behest of the respondent and her friends, petitioner obtained a Permanent Resident (PR) visa for himself and the respondent as his dependent in order to avoid expiry of health insurance coverage every time the work permit expires. The petitioner had been a very good husband and father and he would wake up early, cook breakfast and lunch to the respondent and their daughter as the respondent attended office work in night shifts and used to spend considerable number of hours during the day sleeping and it was the petitioner who took care of the child while availing the option of ‘work from home’ from his office. However, the respondent always found fault with the petitioner and never left an opportunity to pick fights with him no matter what he did. Inspite of repeated requests by the petitioner, the respondent had made it clear that she
Vishnu v. Jaya [(2010)6 SCC 733]—Referred.
Sheila B. Das v. P.R. Sugasree [(2006)3 SCC 62]—Referred.
Sarita Sharma v. Sushil Sharma [(2000)3 SCC 14]—Referred.
NithyaAnandRaghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2017)8 SCC 454]—Referred.
Mohan Kumar Rayana v. Komal Mohan Rayana [(2010)5 SCC 657]—Referred.
Y. Narasimha Rao v. Y. Venkata Lakshmi [(1991)3 SCC 451]—Referred.
Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh [(2017)3 SCC 231]—Referred.
Gaurav Nagpal v. SumedhaNagpal [(2009)1 SCC 42] —Referred.
HoshiamShavakshaDolikuka v. Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka [(1982)2 SCC 577] —Referred.
David Jude v. Hannah Grace Jude [(2003)10 SCC 760] —Referred.
KanikaGoel v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2018)9 SCC 578]—Referred.
Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw [(1987)1 SCC 42] —Referred.
Vivek Singh v. Romani Singh [(2017)3 SCC 231] —Referred.
State of Rajasthan v. Ganeshi Lal [(2008)2 SCC 533] —Referred.
SupremeToday
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.