SHEILA B. DAS versus P.R. SUGASREE

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 17-02-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHEILA B. DAS 
v. 
P.R. SUGASREE 
FEBRUARY 17, 2006 
[B.P. SINGH AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890; Sections 7 and 25- Hindu Minority 
and Guardianship Act, 1956; Section 6-Claim of custody of child by father 
C and mother after divorce-Child preferred to stay with her father-Family 
court holding in favour ojfather as per child's wishes· --High Court dismissing 
the appeal of the mother-Correctness of--Held, on facts, after having custody 
of the child, the father looked afier all her needs and the child appears to be 
happy with her father-Hence, the interest of the child will be best served if 
she remains with her father but with sufficient access to the mother to visit her 
0 child at frequent intervals as directed by the Court. 
Appellant-doctor ~md respondent-lawyer got married under the 
provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and a girl child was born to 
them. The appellant left her matrimonial home alongwith the child without 
informing the respondent. The respondent filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus 
E in High Court which was disposed of upon an undertaking given by the 
appellant to bring the child back to her matrimonial home. Thereafter, 
the respondent filed two applications before Family Court under sections 
7 and 25 of the Guardians and words Act, 1890 and under sections 6 of 
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956. The respondent also filed 
F an application before the Family Court for interim custody of the minor 
child. After interviewing the minor child to elucidate her views with regard 
to the respondent's prayer for interim custody, die Family Court allowed 
the two applications of the respondent by giving certain directions and 
directed the appellant to ~:ive the custody of the child to the respondent. 
G 
The appellant filed :m appeal in High Court wherein the order of 
H 
the Family Court was stayed. The respondent filed an application before 
the High Court for review of the order of stay. The High Court directed 
the Family Court to intt~rview the minor child. The Family Court 
interviewed the minor child and gave a report the High Court stating that 
342 
• 
" 
7 
. 1 
'\ 
SHEILA B. DAS v. P.R. SUGASREE 
343 
the minor child preferred to stay with the respondent. The High Court A 
vacated the interim stay and granted custody of the minor child to the 
respondent till the disposal of the appeal. The respondent, thereafter, filed 
an application for divorce before the Family Court. The appellant filed a 
special leave petition before the Supreme Court against the order of the 
High Court granting custody of the minor child to the respondent, which B 
was dismissed. The High Court thereafter dismissed the appeal of the 
appellant. Immediately thereafter, the Family Court granted divorce to 
the parties. 
In appeal to the Court, the appellant-mother contended that the 
minor child was of tender age and would soon attain puberty when she C 
would need the guidance and instructions of a woman to enable her to 
deal with both physical and emotional changes which take place during 
such period; that she, being a doctor, would be in a better position to take 
care of the needs of the minor child in comparison to the respondent who 
had little time to look after the needs of the minor child; that the minor 
child was extremely happy with her till the respondent-father began to D 
claim custody of the child and soon after obtaining the custody, the 
respondent influenced his child to tell the Family Court that she preferred 
to stay with her father; that the child has been exposed by the respondent 
to "Parental Alienation Syndrome" and hence the minor child, inspite of 
her being with the appellant for 7 years, had expressed a preference to be E 
with the respondent after she was placed in his custody; that section 6 of 
the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 recognised the mother 
also as the natural guardian of the minor; that she paid school admission 
and tuition fees for the child's schooiing in a good school and for· 
extracurricular activities; that she made various financial investments for 
the benefit of the minor child; that, although she was granted visitation F 
rights by an interim order of this Court, she was unable to remain in 
contact with her because of distance and that the respondent never allowed 
her to meet the minor child and spend sufficient time with her. 
The respondent-father, denying the various allegations of the 
appella

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