Ruchika Abbi &ANR. Versus State Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi & ANR.

[2015] 11 S.C.R. 900 RUCHIKA ABBI &ANR.

v.

STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.

Criminal Appeal No.1683 of2015 DECEMBER 09, 2015 [J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Art.

226- Habeas corpus c petition- By wife-Against her husband- Seeking production and return of her minor daughter- High Court disposed of the petition, directing the Family Court to dispose of the pending custody case- On appeal, Family Court directed to dispose of the pending custody case keeping in view the D paramount interest and welfare of the child - During pendency of the custody case, temporary custody granted to husband/father with direction to father to drop the child for one day in a week to the mother/wife- Parents advised not to take advantage of the temporary custody for tutoring the E child and create hatred against others- Parents also advised to come to mutual terms in the interest of the child- Family Court directed to hold regular sittings for reconciliation during pendency of the custody case- Family Law- Child Welfare.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal F Appeal No. 1683 of 2015 From Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2014 of High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1735 of 2014. WITH Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 382 of 2015 in SLP (~rl.) No. 2372/2015 Pritpal Nijjar, Aditya Singla, Ambika Nijjar, Am it Kumar, Ritika Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, for the Appellants. Jagjit Singh, Bhagat Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Dr. Abhishek Atrey, P. K. Dey, D. s. Mahra, for the Respondents.

RUCHIKAABBI v. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal) No .. 1735 of 2014 whereby the High Court disposed of the Habe~s Corpus writ petition filed by the appellant herein for the production and return of the minor B daughter by issuing directions.

3. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail except to state that the dispute which revolves around between the parties (wife-appellant herein and husbandrespondent no. 2 herein) is essentially in relation to the custody C ~ftheir minordaughter-Roshni.

4. So far as this appeal is concerned, as mentioned above, it aris_es out of final judgment and order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in 0 a habeas corpus petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No. 1735 of2014 filed by the wife against her husband seeking production and return of her minor daughter and praying for some consequential reliefs therein. The High Court, by impugned judgment, disposed of the writ petition inter alia directing the E Family Court to dispose ofthe main custody case. · 5. This Court, during the pendency of the proceedings, had passed some interim orders regarding temporary custody of the child.

·

6. Heard Mrs. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for F the appellant, Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having interacting wtth the child, we feel that it would be just and proper to direct the Family Court, which has seized of the G main custody case (Guardianship Case No. 115/2014) to dispose of the pending main case, i.e., Guardianship Case No. 115/2014, on merits preferably within six months as an outer limit strictly in accordance with Jaw keeping in view the paramount interest and welfare of the child and all relevant f

. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS'_'.- . ; [2.015] 11 S.C.R. :.

~- . __ > .-.. .: . . ,:

-· .

. . .

\ .

.

. . . "

-.

factors necessary for deciding the custody of minor child .

. . .

.

~ . .

. -.

. -.

: . .

. . .

uninfluenced by any of our observat1o~s. ·-.

_- ·. .

.

_ · · ~ - D~ring the penden~y of the mai~ c~stody case, the tempo·r.ciry ~i.Jstod{ of_ the child_-RC?shni yvil_l be with the respondent' no. 2 ~i.e. husband/father: The respondent no. 2 B will drop the child-on every Saturday by 6 .. 00 pm. at the petitioner's residence and collect the child by 6.00 pm. on the next day (Sunday).

. · · ·- .

· ~ · 9. We hope, trust arid expect from the appelfant and - respondent no. 2 to cooperate with _each other~or the sake of their 1iiinor child's welfare and taking advafltage of temporary custody of the child not to influence her inno'cent mind by tutoring her arid create hatred against others fc:>r their personal interest-a fact. which we unfortunately notic~d while interacting with the child on two occasions. Indeed. we feel that such attempt on their part and especially, respondent no. 2 may do more harm to the child in long run.

.

;

•

10. rn our view, both parties being young and highly educated should realize such things for the welfare oi their own .

- · E child and make sincere efforts to GO me to mutual terms so that every one is able to live happily and enjoy family life. Such steps, if taken, will always be in the interest of everyone including the child who needs protection, guidance, care, love and affection of both mother a~d father, who were responsible F- to bring her in this world.

11. We, therefore, direct the Fa miry Court to hold regular sittings for reconciliation during the pendency of the custody . case and if considers necessary for the welfare and interest of the child pass any interim orders till final disposal of the G custody case.

12. W ith the-se directions; the appeal stands disposed of finally.·

13. In the light of the order passed hereinabove in the appeal, no orders are required in the contempt petition. H Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of .

•