Date of the Judgment: February 18, 2020
Citation: Not Available
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J. The judgment was authored by Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a court intervene in a child custody battle to ensure the welfare of the children when parents are in a bitter matrimonial dispute? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case where a husband and wife were locked in a protracted legal battle over the custody and visitation rights of their two children. The court, while acknowledging the pain and suffering of children in such disputes, emphasized that the paramount consideration must always be the welfare of the child.
Case Background
Soumitra Kumar Nahar and Parul Nahar married on December 10, 2001, according to Hindu rites. They had two children: a daughter, Sanjana, born on May 24, 2005, and a son, Shravan, born on October 10, 2008. After the birth of their second child, marital differences arose, leading to personal allegations and counter-allegations. This prompted the husband to file a Guardianship Petition on April 15, 2011, under Sections 7, 8, 10 & 11 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. He also filed a Divorce Petition in September 2011, citing cruelty and adultery.
The husband’s father also filed a suit in the High Court of Delhi, seeking an injunction against the wife from entering his self-acquired property. The couple had to leave their matrimonial home and move to a rented accommodation. The High Court granted an interim mandatory injunction in favor of the husband’s father, directing the wife to vacate the property. This order was later challenged, and a consent order was passed on March 1, 2013, which included terms for the wife’s residence, maintenance, and visitation rights.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 10, 2001 | Soumitra Kumar Nahar and Parul Nahar get married. |
| May 24, 2005 | Daughter Sanjana is born. |
| October 10, 2008 | Son Shravan is born. |
| April 15, 2011 | Husband files Guardianship Petition. |
| September 2011 | Husband files Divorce Petition. |
| February 5, 2013 | High Court grants interim mandatory injunction directing wife to vacate property. |
| March 1, 2013 | Consent order passed by High Court regarding residence, maintenance, and visitation rights. |
| April 5, 2013 | High Court directs parties to settle visitation rights through mediation. |
| December 21, 2013 | Family Court rejects husband’s application for visitation rights. |
| September 25, 2014 | High Court directs parties to appear before a mediator and facilitates meetings between children and father. |
| September 4, 2015 | High Court partly allows husband’s appeal, directing wife to comply with visitation rights for son, but not daughter. |
| May 12, 2016 | High Court directs psychotherapist to assess the relationship of children with their father and paternal grandparents. |
| July 29, 2016 | Supreme Court directs children to spend time with their father at the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. |
| March 20, 2017 | Supreme Court orders children to be placed in a boarding school. |
| September 7, 2017 | Supreme Court passes detailed order on how children will spend their vacations with each parent. |
| August 21, 2018 | Supreme Court directs District Judge, Nainital to ascertain children’s wishes regarding Rakshabandhan vacation. |
| August 23, 2018 | Supreme Court grants custody to father during Rakshabandhan vacation. |
| February 22, 2019 | Supreme Court orders that the arrangement regarding custody of the minor children during school vacations would continue. |
| February 18, 2020 | Supreme Court disposes of the appeals, continuing interim arrangements and allowing parties to file independent custody petitions. |
Course of Proceedings
The husband initially filed a Guardianship Petition and a Divorce Petition in the Family Court. The High Court of Delhi intervened, passing orders regarding the wife’s residence and visitation rights. When the Family Court rejected the husband’s application for visitation rights, the High Court directed the parties to seek mediation. Despite these efforts, the disputes continued, leading to further appeals and applications. The High Court partly allowed the husband’s appeal, granting visitation rights for the son but not the daughter. The High Court also sought the opinion of a psychotherapist to assess the children’s relationship with their father. Ultimately, the matter reached the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The judgment references the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, specifically Sections 7, 8, 10 & 11, under which the initial Guardianship Petition was filed. These sections deal with the power of the court to appoint a guardian, the persons entitled to apply for guardianship, and the procedure for such applications. The court also implicitly considers the principles of child welfare as a paramount consideration in custody matters, which is a principle derived from various judicial pronouncements.
Arguments
Appellant (Husband):
- The husband argued that the guardianship of both minor children should be handed over to him, as they have been living separately from both parents for some time.
- He requested that if the court does not grant him custody, he should be allowed to file a separate guardianship petition, and the interim arrangements should continue until the outcome of such a petition.
- He also sought measures for the safety and security of the children and permission to take necessary steps for their upbringing.
Respondent (Wife):
- The wife opposed the husband’s submissions, stating that the paternal grandparents had recently passed away, and there was no one to positively influence the children.
- She argued that there is no female member in the husband’s house to look after their growing daughter.
- She requested that the school administration allow her to see her children and that she be allowed to withdraw her consent to the settlement recorded by the High Court on March 1, 2013.
- She also sought directions for access to the children as per school rules and that her consent be obtained for foreign trips or major school activities.
- She wanted to see the children’s report cards and other extracurricular accolades.
- She argued that the consent order of March 1, 2013, should be re-agitated, including issues of alimony, maintenance, and share in ancestral properties.
- She also requested that contempt notices issued against her be withdrawn.
| Husband’s Submissions | Wife’s Submissions |
|---|---|
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the court were:
- What is the appropriate arrangement for the custody and visitation rights of the minor children, given the ongoing matrimonial dispute between the parents?
- Whether the consent order passed by the High Court on March 1, 2013, can be unilaterally withdrawn by one party?
- What directions should be given to ensure the welfare and best interests of the children?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Custody and visitation rights | The Court directed that the interim arrangement made earlier regarding custody and visitation rights should continue. The parties were given liberty to file independent custody/guardianship petitions before the competent court. |
| Withdrawal of consent order | The Court held that the consent order of March 1, 2013, could not be unilaterally withdrawn. It would remain operative until the parties jointly moved for withdrawal or until a competent court set it aside. |
| Welfare and best interests of children | The Court emphasized that the welfare of the children was the paramount consideration. It directed that any future custody proceedings should be decided independently, without being influenced by the observations made in the present proceedings. The Divorce Petition was to be decided expeditiously. |
Authorities
The court did not explicitly cite specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it referred to the well-settled principle that in matters of child custody, the paramount consideration is always the welfare of the child, citing a “catena of judgments” of the Supreme Court. The court also implicitly considered the principles of natural justice and the rights of the child to the love and affection of both parents.
| Authority | How Considered |
|---|---|
| Catena of judgments of the Supreme Court | The Court reiterated that the paramount consideration in child custody matters is the welfare of the child. |
| Principles of natural justice | The Court implicitly considered the rights of the child to the love and affection of both parents. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Husband | Guardianship of children to be handed over to him. | The Court did not grant immediate guardianship but allowed him to file a separate guardianship petition. |
| Husband | Interim arrangement to continue. | The Court agreed to continue the interim arrangement. |
| Husband | Measures for safety and security of children. | The Court allowed him to take necessary measures for the children’s upbringing. |
| Wife | Opposed husband’s claim for guardianship. | The Court did not grant immediate guardianship to either parent. |
| Wife | Request to see children and access to report cards, etc. | The Court acknowledged that the issue would be examined in custody proceedings. |
| Wife | Withdrawal of consent to the settlement. | The Court rejected the unilateral withdrawal of consent. |
| Wife | Re-agitation of consent order of March 1, 2013. | The Court held that the consent order would remain operative. |
| Wife | Withdrawal of contempt notices. | The Court did not specifically address the withdrawal of contempt notices in this judgment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the principle that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters, citing a “catena of judgments” of the Supreme Court. This principle was the guiding force for the Court’s decision. The Court also implicitly considered the principles of natural justice and the rights of the child to the love and affection of both parents.
- The Court emphasized that the welfare of the child is paramount in custody matters, citing a “catena of judgments” of the Supreme Court.
- The Court implicitly considered the principles of natural justice and the rights of the child to the love and affection of both parents.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the welfare of the children caught in the middle of a bitter matrimonial dispute. The Court recognized the emotional toll such conflicts take on children and emphasized that their best interests must be the paramount consideration. The Court also noted that the parents’ inability to resolve their disputes amicably had led to the children being deprived of a stable and loving environment. The Court’s decision to continue the interim arrangements and allow for independent custody proceedings reflects its desire to ensure that the children’s needs are met while also giving the parents an opportunity to resolve their issues.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Welfare of the Children | 45% |
| Need for Amicable Resolution | 25% |
| Parents’ Responsibility | 15% |
| Legal Procedures | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to prioritize the children’s well-being above all else. It recognized that the children were suffering due to the ongoing conflict between their parents and that a stable and loving environment was essential for their development. The Court also noted that the parents’ inability to resolve their disputes amicably had led to the children being deprived of a stable and loving environment.
The Court considered the interim arrangements that had been put in place and decided to continue them, recognizing that these arrangements had been made with the children’s best interests in mind. The Court also acknowledged that the parents had the right to pursue their legal remedies and allowed them to file independent custody petitions. The Court’s decision was aimed at striking a balance between the parents’ rights and the children’s needs.
The Court did not accept the wife’s request to unilaterally withdraw her consent from the earlier settlement, emphasizing the binding nature of consent orders. The Court also declined to impose additional conditions on the school authorities, stating that such issues should be addressed in the custody proceedings.
“In a custody battle, no matter which parent wins but the child is always the loser and it is the children who pay the heaviest price as they are shattered when the Court by its judicial process tells them to go with the parent whom he or she deems fit.”
“It is also well settled by the catena of judgments of this Court that while deciding the matters of custody of the child, primary and paramount consideration is always the welfare of the child.”
“If the welfare of the child so demands, then technical objections cannot come in the way.”
Key Takeaways
- In child custody battles, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.
- Courts will not allow technical objections to come in the way of ensuring the child’s well-being.
- Consent orders cannot be unilaterally withdrawn by one party.
- Parents should strive to resolve disputes amicably, keeping in mind the best interests of their children.
- Courts may intervene to ensure children are not deprived of a stable and loving environment.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that:
- The interim arrangements made earlier regarding custody/visitation rights should continue.
- The parties are at liberty to file independent custody/guardianship petitions before the competent court.
- The Divorce Petition should be decided expeditiously, no later than December 31, 2020.
Development of Law
This judgment reinforces the principle that in child custody matters, the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. It also clarifies that consent orders cannot be unilaterally withdrawn, emphasizing the binding nature of such agreements. There is no change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Soumitra Kumar Nahar vs. Parul Nahar highlights the complexities of child custody battles and the importance of prioritizing the welfare of the child. The Court’s decision to continue the interim arrangements and allow for independent custody proceedings reflects its commitment to ensuring that the children’s needs are met while also giving the parents an opportunity to resolve their issues. The judgment serves as a reminder that in matrimonial disputes, children are often the most vulnerable and their best interests must always be the guiding principle.