HARSHITA BHASIN versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 510 · Decided: 14-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR, D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 510 
HARSHITA BHASIN 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS 
(I.A. No. 4 of 2016) 
B 
fu 
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4754 of2014) 
DECEMBER 14, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND 
C 
L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.) 
Family Law - Petition by husband - Under guardian and 
Wards Act, 1890 seeking custody of Children - Filed before Court 
in Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. - Habeas Corpus petition filed by 
wife before Calcutta High Court - High Court refusing interim 
D custody to wife, by way of temporary arrangement directed the 
husband to bring the two children (aged 8 years and 5 years) on a 
fortnightly basis to Kolkata on a Sunday and allow the wife to meet 
them between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. - This court confirming the 
temporary arrangement as directed by the High Court, disposed of 
the Special Leave Petition - Interim application by husband for 
E 
modification of the visitation orders on the ground that the minor 
children had to face inconvenience - Parties agreed to an 
arrangement that the children shall travel to Kolkata once in a month 
and the wife would travel to Delhi once in a month - Husband 
directed to pay Rs. 40, 0001- towards travel and stay expenses of the 
F 
wife by depositing the same in the bank account of wife by seventh 
day of every month - Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I. A. No. 4 of 2016 in 
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4754of2014. 
Mrs. MeenakshiArora and Balbir Singh, Sr. Advs., Kabir Shankar 
G 
Bose, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Ms. Harshita Bhasin, Anand Sandhu, Ms. 
H 
Udita Singh, Vivek Singh, Shankar Ch. Ghosh, Parijat Sinha, Anip 
Sachthey and Satpal Singh, Advs., for the appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered by 
510 
HARSHITA BHASIN v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS 
511 
ORDER 
A 
DR. D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. l. The applicant, Mukul Bhasin, 
was imp leaded as the fifth respondent to a petition under Article 136 of 
the Constitution which was disposed of by this Court on 9 April 2014. 
The first respondent to the application was the petitioner in the Special 
Leave Petition. The applicant and the first respondent were married on 
B 
11 July 2007. They have two children - Ranvir, who was born on 24 
July 2008 and Hridaan, born on 16 November 20 l l. The children are 
now eight and five years old. There is a matrimonial dispute and parties 
have been living separately since July 2013. 
2. The applicant instituted a petition under the Guardian and Wards 
C 
Act, 1890 (Petition 754 of2013) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 
GautamBudh Nagai', UP, for dissolution of marriage and for custody of 
the children. The respondent instituted a habeas corpus petition before 
the Calcutta High Court to which the applicant filed an affidavit-in-
opposition. An order was passed by the Calcutta High Court refusing 
. interim custody to the respondent. The High Court, however, directed D 
the applicant to bring the children on a fortnightly basis to Kolkata on a 
Sunday and to allow the respondent to meet them between 11 am and 4 
pm at the residence of the respondent's advocate. This led to the Special 
Leave Petition by the respondent challenging the order refusing interim 
custody to her. 
E 
3. During the course of the hearing of the Special Leave Petition 
this Court recorded by its order dated 13 March 2014 that it had 
interviewed both the parties and the minor children to explore the 
possibility of an amicable settlement.By way of a temporary 
arrangement, interim custody of the children was granted to the respondent 
F 
for the duration of the ensuing school vacation until the reopening of the 
school of the elder child, after which the children were to be restoredto 
the father. Eventually, on 9 April 2014 the Special Leave Petition was 
disposed of since the order of the High Court impugned was purely an 
interim arrangement which did not finally determine the rights and 
obligations of the parties. However, the Court which is seized of the 
G 
Guardianship Petition was requested to expedite its proceedings and to 
pass final orders, as far as possible, within three months. The interim 
arrangement regarding visitation rights made by the High Court was 
directed to continue. 
H 
512 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
4. The applicant moved the court before which the guardianship 
proceedings are pending in January 2016 for modification of the visitation 
orders on the allegation
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.