LexMOHAN KUMAR RAYANA versus KOMAL MOHAN RAYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ l ~ A MOHAN KUMAR RAY ANA V. KO MAL MOHAN RAY ANA NOVEMBER I, 2007 B [C.K. THAKKER AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ..:.. ' Family Law-Custody of minor child-Sought by both the c parents-Granted to mother-However, access to the child by father allowed-High Court by interim order granting limited access to father and also directing the parties to visit a Psychiatrist-On non- compliance of order to visit Psychiatrist, order of access kept in abeyance-On appeal, held: Despite non-compliance of court directions, father could not be denied complete access to his child- D Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956-s. 6--Guardians and Wards Act, 1890-ss. 7 and 25. After a discord between appellant (husband) and respondent (wife), they started living separately. A daughter born of the E wedlock, was with the respondent. When appellant took away the daughter forcibly from the custody of the respondent, she moved Family Court seeking custody of the daughter. Appellant also filed a custody petition before the Family Court. The Court dismissed the appellant's application and allowed that of the respondent However, . F permission was granted to the appellant to meet the daughter. Appellant as well as respondent filed appeals. High Court by interi~ order reduced the access granted to the appellant. High Court by - another interim order directed the appellant and the respondent to visit a Psychiatrist with the child and the access granted was G continued. By yet another interim order, High Court again directed the parties to visit the Psychiatrist. By the interim order, the Court, _., kept the order of access of father to the child, in abeyance, till the parties complied with the order to visit the Psychiatrist. Hence the present appeals against the four interim orders of the High Court. H 854 / MOHANKUMARRA YANA v. KOMALMOHANRA YANA 855 ...._ \ [ALTAMASKABIR,J.] Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In view of the materials on record and after considering the views of the parties and the minor girl, the appellant should not be denied complete access to his minor child, even ifthere has been A a default in complying with the directions of the High Court and that pending the disposal of the appeals, he should be allowed to have B access to his minor child, at least to some extent. [Para 16] (861-E, F] · 2. Accordingly, it is directed, modifying the interim order to the extent that the appellant/father of the mir.or, will be entitled to have c access to his daughter on weekends on Saturdays and Sundays and , will be entitled, if the child is willing, to keep her with him on Saturday night. [Para 17) (861-F, G; 862-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5088- 5097 of2007. D From the interim Judgments and Orders dated 12.7.2007, 19.7.2007, 27.7.2007, 6.8. 2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in F.C.A. Nos. 61 & 29, C.A. No. 81 in F.C.A. No. 61 with C.A. No. 39 in F.C.A. No. 29 with C.A. No. 169 in F.C.A. No. 29, in F.C.A. No. 61 & 29, in E F.C.A. No. 61 alongwith C.A. No. 81 alongwith F.C.A. No. 29/2007 ' respectively. Dr. AM. Singhvi, Sudhanshu Batra, S. Jayaram, Pramit Saxena, Amit Yadav, Dr. Kevic Setalwad and S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant. Indu Malhotra, RI. Lalwani, S.I. Jayakar (Lalwani) Sunieta Ozha, Nitin Ramesh and Anitha Shenoy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ALT AMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Since both the parties to the special leave petitions are before us, Notice of the Appeals is waived on behalf of the respondent, Komal Mohan Rayana. f, G' 3. The appeals arise out of circumstances wherein owing to disputes H \ \ 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R. f ,, A and differences between a married couple, the child born of the wedlock has become the object of a tussle for custody between the two parents. 4. The subject matter of these appeals are four orders passed by the Bombay High Court on 12th July 2007, 19th July 2007, 27th July B 2007 and 6th August 2007 in two appeals from a petition No.D-65/2005 before the Family Court. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which ~' these orders came to be passed, it will be necessary to state a few facts leading to the commencement of the proceedings before the Family Court. 5. Admittedly, the appellant herein, who is the husband of the c respondent, married the respondent on 2nd March 2002. A daughter was born to them a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.