9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Custody of the child. 2. Declaration of marriage as null and void. 3. Violation of court orders by the appellant. Summary: Issue 1: Custody of the Child The Supreme Court addressed the appeals concerning the custody of the child, Abhijeet. The Family Court and High Court had previously granted custody to the respondent-father based on his financial capacity to provide superior education in the USA. The Supreme Court found that this sole reason was insufficient to shift custody from the appellant-mother, who had been caring for the child for over 12 years. The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child includes not just material considerations but also emotional and moral well-being. The Court also noted that the appellant's previous custody orders from the High Court and under the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890, were binding and operated as res judicata, requiring proof of substantial change in circumstances to justify a shift in custody. The Court did not find any such substantial change between 1990 and 1993 or 1997. Issue 2: Declaration of Marriage as Null and Void The appellant initially sought a declaration that her marriage to the respondent was null and void due to the respondent's previous subsisting marriage. However, during the proceedings, the appellant stated that she did not wish to pursue this matter further. Consequently, the earlier decree of divorce between the appellant and respondent was treated as final. Issue 3: Violation of Court Orders by the Appellant The respondent argued that the appellant's removal of the child from the USA to India in violation of US court orders and her failure to produce the child before the Bombay High Court should disqualify her from having custody. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the paramount welfare of the child overrides such violations. The Court cited various precedents, including McKee vs. McKee (1951 AC 352) and Mrs. Elizabeth Dinshaw vs. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Another (1987 2 SCC 42), to support its decision that the welfare of the child is the primary consideration. Additional Considerations: The Supreme Court interviewed the child, who expressed a desire to continue his studies in India and stay with his mother. The Court granted visitation rights to the respondent-father, allowing him to visit the child in Pune under specific conditions but denied temporary custody to avoid disrupting the child's education and well-being. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appellant-mother's appeal against the Family Court's order granting custody to the respondent-father and dismissed the respondent's application for custody. The appeal concerning the declaration of marriage as null and void was dismissed as not pressed. The Court also directed the withdrawal of any subsisting bailable warrants against the appellant.
|
