KUMAR V. JAHGIRDAR versus CHETHANA RAMATHEERTHA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 1203 · Decided: 29-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

KUMAR V. JAHGIRDAR 
A 
V. 
CHETHANA RAMATHEERTHA 
JANUARY 29, 2004 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
B 
Custody-Minor daughter-Rival claim of a divorced couple-Mother 
re-married lo a cricket celebrity-Family Court gra/1/ing exclusive custody of 
child lo father-High Court reversing the judgment of Family Court-Held, C 
the judgment of High Court giving exclusive custody of the child lo the mother 
and visitation rights to the natural fath{?r is just and proper in safeguarding 
the interests of the child-Child being on advent of puberty, required more 
care and attention of the mother more so when father has no female members 
living jointly with him-Direction given for custody of child to natural father 
during foreign visits of the mother. 
D 
.!11dgme111--General observation by High Court in favour of mother as 
pare/1/ to be always preferable to the father to retain custody of child-Held, 
such generalization in favour of the mother should not have been made. 
After the divorce obtained by mutual consent under the provisions E 
of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a dispute arose between the parties with 
respect to their ri\'al claim to exclusive custody of their daughter. After 
obtaining divorce, respondent-wife remarried a famous cricketer of 
national and international repute. Shortly thereafter, respondent filed an 
application in the Family Court seeking exclusive custody of the child. The F 
Family Court rejected her application directing that the exclusive custody 
of the child be given to the natural father with only right of visitations to 
the mother. The dispute went up to Supreme Court which made an interim 
arrangement allowing respondent-mother to retain custody of the child 
with visitation rights to the father with directions to the Family Court to 
decide the case expeditiously. The Family Court granted exclusive custody G 
of the child to father with only right of weekly visitations to the mother. 
In appeal, High Court reversed the judgment of the Family Court and 
directed that the mother should continue to retain exclusive custody of 
the child with visitation rights to the father. Hence the present appeals. 
1203 
H 
r 
""' 
ii
1204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] I S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the appellant-father, it was contended that the 
.... 
respondent was re-married to a cricket celebrity and had a style of life 
which required frequent foreign tours, exposure to public life and media; 
,,
I
that there was possibility of the child being brain-washed to keep distance 
from the natural father and that the father had remained unmarried with 
B 
the sole aim to bring up his child in a congenial atmosphere of love and 
affection. 
On beha If of the respondent, it was contended that the past conduct 
of the wife and her second husband throughout the proceedings in these 
cases belies the apprehension of the former husband that the child's mind 
c would be poisoned against him. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On the paramount consideration of best safeguarding 
the interest of the child, the judgment of the High Court giving exclusive 
D custody of the child to the mother and visitation rights to the natural father 
deserves to be maintained with little modification. The child is, at present, 
9 years of age and on advent of puberty. This is the age in which she 
requires more care and attention of the mother. Mother, at this age of 
the child, deserves to continue to keep the custody of the female child. She 
is reported to have given up her service and now leading life of a house-
E wife. It is reported that the wife is presently on the family way. The 
prospect of arrival of the second child in the family of the wife is another 
circumstance which would be in favour of the present child. Further, the 
petitioner lives alone with his father. There are no female members living 
jointly with him to ensure constant company, care and attention to the 
F female child. The natural father is a busy stock Broker and it cannot be 
said that in the course of his business, he has not to remain out of residence 
-"\ 
for attending his office and other business engagements. 
. 
' 
11210-C-H; t211~AI 
t.2. The apprehension expressed against the second husband that he 
G might poison the mind of the child and create ill-will towards natural 
father is not borne out from the evidence on record. On the contrary the 
second husband in his deposition has made statement evincing a very 

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