MRS. SHILPA AGGARWAL versus MR. AVIRAL MITTAL & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 2 S.C.R. 318 · Decided: 02-02-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 2 S.C.R. 318 
A 
MRS. SHILPA AGGARWAL 
v. 
MR. AVIRAL MITTAL & ANR. 
Crl.M.P.No.1503 & 1504 of 2010 
IN 
B 
Crl. Appeal No.2357 of 2009 
FEBRUARY 2, 2010 
[Al TAMAS KABIR AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] 
C 
Child and Family Welfare: 
Custody and guardianship of child -
Proceedings 
pending in U.K. - Proposal submitted by husband, at the 
instance of Supreme Court*, regarding arrangements for the 
D travel of the wife and the child from India to U.K. and for their 
stay and other expenses including litigation expenses -
Direction issued to the husband to make the arrangements 
and bear the expenses for two months. 
*Shi/pa Aggarwal vs. Aviral Mittal & Anr. (2009) 16 SCR 
E 287, referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
(2009) 16 SCR 287 
referred to 
Para 
F 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 2357 of 2009. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.8.2009 of the High 
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (Crl.) No. 1553 of 2008. 
G 
Devendra Singh, Ghanshyam for the Appellant. 
P.P. Malhotra, ASG, J.S. Attri, S.B. Upadhyay, Prabhjit 
Jauhar, Anumpa Kaul, S.S. Jauhar, Shailendra Sharma, Anil 
Katiyar, Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
H 
318 
SHILPA AGGARWAL v. AVIRAL MITTAL & ANR. 
319 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
A 
ORDER 
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. By our order dated 9 December, 
2009, we had disposed of Criminal Appeal No.2357 of 2009, 
arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5995 of 2009, 
B 
without interfering with the order of the High Court impugned in 
the appeal. In order to ensure that the directions of the High 
Court were complied with by the parties, we had directed the 
Respondent-husband to provide the initial expenses of the 
Appellant-wife and her minor child for travelling to and staying C 
in the United Kingdom for at least a month to attend and contest 
the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No.1 husband 
before the Court of Justice, Family Division, U.K. We had also 
directed the matter to be listed for further orders on 15 
December, 2009, to enable the Respondent-husband to submit D 
a proposal for the travel and staying arrangements for the 
Appellant and her minor daughter in the U.K. for at le~st a 
month. 
2. Pursuant to the said order, a proposal was duly filed by E 
the Respondent-husband on 15 December, 2009, but finding 
the same to be inadequate, we had directed the Respondent-
husband to give a detailed proposal with regard to the said 
arrangements. The Appellant .was also directed to file a 
proposal as to how she intended to work out the order which 
had been passed on 9 December, 2009. The matter was, 
F 
accordingly, listed on 29 January, 2010, to consider the fresh 
proposals to be made by the Respondent-husband and the 
views of the Appellant-wife in respect thereof. 
3. By his application dated 23.12.2009 and filed on 12 G · 
January, 2010, the Respondent-husband, inter alia, indicated 
as follows :-
(a) 
That tickets had been booked by the Respondent 
for the Appellant and the minor child, Elina, to fly 
HI 
,A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
320 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[201 O] 2 S.C.R. 
from Delhi to London by Virgin Atlantic Airways on 
1 February, 2010, Upon arrival in the United 
Kingdom at London Airport, arrangements had 
been made for travel via National Express Coach 
Service to Swindon where the respondent resides. 
(b) 
The Respondent has a three-bed room house in 
Swindon, U.K., where the Appellant and Elina were 
welcome to stay with him, but in case the Appellant 
did not want to stay in the matrimonial home, she 
could stay in the named hotel for which bookings 
had been made from 30 January, 2010, till 28 
February, 2010. 
(c) 
The Respondent would pay the Appellant a daily 
allowance of 40 a day towards maintenance, upon 
her arrival in the United Kingdom. 
(d) 
The Respondent was willing to reimburse any 
reasonable expense above 50 which the Appellant 
may incur for herself in the U.K. till 28.2.2010. 
4. In response to the aforesaid offers, the Appellant-wife 
agreed to stay with the Respondent in their matrimonial home 
in Swindon along with her minor daughter and her father, till 
such time as they were required to stay in the U.K. for the 
purpose of contesting the custody case, subject to the 
Respondent agreeing to undergo psychiatric evaluation and 
treatment. The Appellant also sought the permission of the 
Court to allow her to be accompanied by her father to the United 
Kingdom for which her father was ready and willing to bear his 
travel
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.