MOHAN KUMAR RAYANA versus KOMAL MOHAN RAYANA

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 06-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 4 S.C.R. 411 
MOHAN KUMAR RAYANA 
v. 
KOMAL MOHAN RAYANA 
(SLP(Civil) No. 9821-9822 of 2009) 
APRIL 6, 2010 
[ALTAMAS KABIR, G.S. S!NGHVI AND CYRIAC 
JOSEPH, JJ.] 
Family Law: 
Breakdown of marriage - Custody of girl child - Family 
Court granting custody to mother and allowing the father 
access to child on alternate weekend and child to share 50% 
A 
B 
c 
of school vacations with father - High Court declining to 
interfere with the order - HELD: In such matters, the interest 0 
of the minor is of paramount importance to the court which 
stands in loco parentis to the. minor - Wishes of the minor 
are to be given due weightage - Keeping in view the interest 
of the minor, and on an assessment of her behavioural pattern 
towards both the parents, there is no reason to interfere with 
E 
the order passed by the Family Court as affirmed by the High 
Court - Hindu Minority and Guardiar.ship Act, 1956 - s. 6. 
In two separate petitions filed by the parents of the 
girl child, each claiming her custody, the Family Court 
granted custody of the child to the mother and directed 
F 
that the father would have access to the child on every 
alternate weekend and the child would share 50% of the 
school vacations with her father. In the appeals filed by 
both the parents, the High Court declined to interfere with 
the order of the Family Court as in its opinion sufficient G 
access provided to the father would meet the ends of 
justice, and directed that the custody of the child should 
continue with her mother. 
411 
H 
412 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. Having the interest of the minor in mind, this 
Court met her separately in order to make an assessment 
of her behavioural pattern towards both the parents. 
8 Much against the submissions which have been made 
during the course of hearing of the matter, the child 
appeared to have no inhibiti"ons in meeting her father with 
whom she appeared to have an excellent understanding. 
There was no evidence of the child being hostile to her 
C father when they met each other in the Court. However, 
the child seems to prefer her mother's company as the 
bonding between them is greater than the bonding with 
her father. She is a happy child, the way she is now and 
having regard to her age and the fact that she is a girl 
child, the Court is of the view that she requires her 
D mother's company more at this stage of her life. [para 13] 
(420-F-H; 421-A-B] 
E 
Gui;rav Nagpal vs. 
Sumedha Nagpal 2008 (16 ) 
SCR 396 = (2009) 1 SCC 42, referred to. 
1.2. There is no doubt that the petitioner is very fond 
of his daughter and is very concerned about her welfare 
and future, but in view of his business commitments it 
would not be right or even practicable to disturb the 
F status quo prevailing with regard to child's custody. The 
conditions laid down by the High Court regarding 
visitation rights to the father are sufficient for the child to 
experience the love and affection both of her father and 
mother. There is no reason why the father who will have 
access to his daughter on holidays and weekends, 
G cannot look after her welfare without having continuous 
custody of her person. In such matters the interest of the 
minor is of paramount importance to the court which 
stands in loco parentis to the minor. Of course, the 
wishes of the minor are to be given due weightage, and, 
H in the instant case, the same has been done. Therefore, 
MOHAN KUMAR RAYANA v. KOMAL MOHAN 
413 
RAYANA 
there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by 
A 
the Family. Court, as affirmed by the High Court. [Para 13-
14) [421-B-E) 
Case Law Reference: 
2008 (16) SCR 396 
referred to 
Para 7 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (C) Nos. 9821-
9822 of 2009. 
B 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.1.2009 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Family Court Appeal No. 29 
C 
of 2007 with Family Court Appeal No. 61 of 2007. 
Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Shyam Divan, Madhavi Diwan, Shelly 
Saluja, .Ankur Chawla, Sheely Satija, Kevic Setalvaya, Pallavi 
Langar (for Coac) for the Petitioner. 
D 
Meenakshi Lekhi, Abhijit Das, Gopal Jha, Ravi Kumar 
Tomar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. These petitions involve the final 
stage of a custody battle on account of disruption and finally a 
break down of the marriage ties between the petitioner and the 
respondent. 
E 
F 
2. The petitioner and the respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.