DEEPTI BHANDARI versus NITIN BHANDARI & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 13 S.C.R. 547 · Decided: 14-12-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 547 
DEEPTI BHANDARI 
v. 
NITIN BHANDARI & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5213 of 2010) 
DECEMBER 14, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND 
J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
Child and Family Welfare: 
Girl child of a couple involved in matrimonial litigation -
Visitation rights of father and grand parents of the child -
Earlier, litigation in courts at Jaipur - Visitation rights were 
granted to the father- Subsequently, mother with child shifted 
A 
B 
c 
to Delhi - Transfer petition by mother for transfer of cases filed 
0 
by her husband against her at Jaipur to Delhi and an SLP to 
shift the place of visitation to Delhi - HELD: It is the father 
who should make an effort to meet his minor child in Delhi 
as and when he wishes to do so - The mother can have no 
objection whatsoever to such an arrangement and must also 
ensure that the child is able to meet her father in terms of the 
E 
order of the Court on all weekends in Delhi instead of the 
second and fourth Saturday of each month - The visitation 
rights granted to the father will have equal application to his 
parents and they too will be at liberty to visit the minor child 
F 
in Delhi, as and when they wish to do so, along with her father 
- In the event, the child is willing, the father may also take 
her out for the day and return her to the custody of the mother 
within 6.00 p.m - This arrangement will continue, until further 
orders. 
Transfer Petition: 
Matrimonial dispute between couple whose marriage had 
been performed at Jaipur - Husband filing a case uls 9 of 
547 
G 
H 
548 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A Hindu Marriage Act and another under Guardians and Wards 
Act in Family Court at Jaipur - Subsequently wife shifted to 
Delhi and filed transfer petitions seeking transfer of cases to 
Delhi - HELD: Transfer petitions filed by the wife are allowed 
- Let both the cases be transferred from the Family Court at 
B Jaipur to a Family Court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi -
The transferor court is directed to send the records of the 
cases to the transferee court, so that the matter may be heard 
and disposed of by the transferee court with the utmost 
expedition. 
c 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave 
Petition (Criminal) No. 5213 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2010 of the 
High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Misc. Petition No. 
D 1977 of 2009. 
\\llTH 
T.P. (C) Nos. 856-857 of 2010. 
lndu Malhotra, Harish Pandey, Vivek Jain, C. Chandra, Dr. 
E Kailash Chand, Mukul Kumar, Prashant Bhagwati and Pragati 
Neekhra, Respondent-In-Person for the appearing parties. 
F 
The Order of the Court was delivered ~y 
ORDER 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. The Petitioner and the 
Respondent No.1 were married to each other according to 
Hindu rites at Jaipur in the State of Rajasthan on 20th February, 
2007. A girl child, Mannat, was born prematurely to the couple 
G on 3rd April, 2008, and had to be kept in incubator for about 
three weeks. It is the Petitioner's grievance that while they were 
on their honeymoon in Mauritius, the Respondent No.1, 
husband, began to treat her with physical and mental cruelty. 
Even during her pregnancy, she was ill-treated. Ultiinately, 
H 
DEEPTI BHANDARI v. NITIN BHANDARI & ANR. 
549 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, J.] 
being unable to withstand the physical and mental cruelty 
A 
inflicted both on the Petitioner and her minor daughter, the 
Petitioner was compelled to leave the matrimonial home and 
return to her parents on 7th October, 2008. 
2. On 6th December, 2008, the Respondent No.1, 
B 
husband, filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu 
Marriage Act, 1955 (Case No.609 of 2008) against the 
Petitioner, for restitution of conjugal rights. Unable to bear the 
shock of the incidents, which had taken place since the 
Petitioner's marriage with the Respondent No.1, the C 
Petitioner's grandparents suffered heart and paralytic attacks, 
as a result of which they have become completely bed-ridden. 
According to the Petitioner, on account of the cruelty meted out 
to her and the child, the Petitioner filed FIR No. 7 of 2009 
complaining of offences alleged to have been committed by the 
Respondent No.1 punishable under Sections 498-A and 406 
D 
IPC. 
3. It is the Petitioner's further case that in order to settle 
the matter peacefully, the Petitioner entered into a compromise 
with the Respondent No.1 on 25th February, 2009, so that she 
E 
could st

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.