JITENDER ARORA & ORS. versus SUKRITI ARORA & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 1 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 17-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

12017] 1 S.C.R. 707 
JITENDER ARORA & ORS. 
v. 
SUKRITI ARORA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 717 of2013) 
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 
[A.K. SIKRI AND R.K. AGRAWAL, JJ.J 
4 
:. 
,·;. 
·' 
Custody - Child custody - Matrimonial dispute - Wife 
obtained ex parte divorce from U.K. court whereas husband obtained 
from Indian court - Husband shifted to India along with the 
daughter - Habeas Corpus petition by wife seeking.directions that 
the husband to handover the custody of the daughter to her - Petition 
allowed by the High Court - Appeal befor~ this Court - Stay of the 
High Court judgment - Held: Paramount consideration is the 
welfare of the child - Daughter. is a mature girl of 15 years of age 
who can decide what is best for her - In spite of giving ample 
chances to the mother by giving temporary custody of the daughter 
to her, mother was not 'able to win over the confidence of the 
daughter - Daughter unequivocally expressed her desire to be with 
her father and stated that she did not want to go to U.K. - Court 
cannot take the risk of sending her to U.K. against her wishes, 
which may prove to be a turbulent and tormenting experience for 
her and would not be in her interest - Thus, the welfare of the 
daughter lies in the continued company of her father which appears 
to be in her best interest - Thus, the judgment of the High Court is 
set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 In cas~s of custody disputes, where a child feels 
tormented because of tiie strained relations between her parents 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
and idenlly needs the com]lany of both of them, It becomes at 
times, a difficult choice for the court to decide as to whom th. e · '·0 
custody should be given •. No doubt, paramount consideration Is 
the welfare of the child. 'V' Is n mature girl oflS years of age. At 
this age, she can fully understand what Is In her best Interest. 
She is competent to take a decision for herself. There has been 
interaction with her by diffe~ent Bencli.es of this Court fi!nm time 
to time, outcome whereof' is reflect~d in the orders passed after 
H 
707 
708 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] I S.C.R. 
such meetings. She has unequivocally and without any 
reservations expressed he.r desire to be with her father. More 
importantly, she has very categorically said that she does not 
want to go to U.K. [Paras 10, 12) [715-E-F; 721-G-H) 
1.2 During the course of arguments, when the respondent 
was also present, the respondent was asked as to whethe.- she 
could shift to India, even temporarily for a year or so, as in that 
eventuality, the Court could consider giving custody of 'V' to her 
for that period. However, she expressed her inability to do so. 
She wanted custody of 'V' on her own terms. She wanted •v• to 
come to U.K. and live with her. 'V' does not want to go to U.K. at 
all. This Court cannot take the risk of sending 'V' to a foreign 
country, against the wishes of a mature girl like 'V', as it may 
prove to be a turbulent and tormenting experience for her. That 
would not be in her interest. [Para 14) [722-E-F) 
1.3 There was interaction with 'V' in the Chambers earlier. 
On the date of hearing also, 'V' was present in the Court and in 
front of her parents, she unequivocally expressed that she was 
happy with her father and wanted to continue in his company and 
did not want to go with her motlter, much less to U.K. Fro1a the 
interaction, it is clearly discernible that she is a mature girl who 
is in a position to weigh the pros and cons of two alternatives and 
to decide as to which course of action is more suited to her. She 
has developed her personality and formed her opinion after 
considering all the attendant circumstances. Her intellectual 
characteristics are adequately developed. She is able to solve 
· problems, think about her future and understands the long term 
F 
effects of the decision which she has taken. She has been brought 
up in a conducive atmosphere. She has achieved sufficient level 
of maturity. Further, in spite of giving ample chances to the 
respondent by giving temporary custody of 'V' to her, respondent 
could not win over the confidence of 'V'. Therefore, it is felt that 
G 
H 
her welfare lies in the continued company of her father which 
appears to be in her best interest. [Para 15) [722-G-H; 723-A-B] 
1.4 The High Court in the impugned judgment had stated 
that since 'V' was a minor girl, she needed company of her mother 
more to understand girly things. The

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