RUCHIKA ABBI & ANR. Vs. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR.

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 1683 of 2015, Judgment Date: Dec 09, 2015

                                                                  Reportable
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1683 OF 2015
                (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 2372 of 2015)

Ruchika Abbi & Anr.                                          ………Appellant(s)

                             VERSUS

State of National Capital
Territory of Delhi & Anr.                                   ………Respondent(s)
WITH
                     CONTEMPT  PETITION (C) No. 382/2015
                                     In
                         S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 2372/2015

                                    ORDER
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
Leave granted.
This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order  dated  07.11.2014
passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ  Petition  (Criminal)
No. 1735 of 2014 whereby the High Court disposed of the Habeas  Corpus  writ
petition filed by the appellant herein for the production and return of  the
minor daughter by issuing directions.
3)    It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in detail  except
to state that the dispute which revolves around between the  parties  (wife-
appellant herein and husband-respondent no.  2  herein)  is  essentially  in
relation to the custody of their minor daughter-Roshni.
4)    So far as this appeal is concerned, as mentioned above, it arises  out
of final judgment and order dated 07.11.2014 passed by  the  High  Court  of
Delhi at New Delhi in a habeas corpus petition bearing W.P.(Crl.)  No.  1735
of 2014 filed by the wife against her husband seeking production and  return
of her minor daughter and praying for some  consequential  reliefs  therein.
The High Court, by impugned judgment, disposed of the  writ  petition  inter
alia directing the Family Court to dispose of the main custody case.
5)    This Court, during the pendency of the proceedings,  had  passed  some
interim orders regarding temporary custody of the child.
6)    Heard Mrs. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for the appellant,  Mr.
Jagjit Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. P.K. Dey,  learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
7)     Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and   having
interacting with the child, we feel that it would  be  just  and  proper  to
direct the  Family  Court,  which  has  seized  of  the  main  custody  case
(Guardianship Case No. 115/2014) to dispose of the pending main case,  i.e.,
Guardianship Case No. 115/2014, on merits preferably within  six  months  as
an outer  limit  strictly  in  accordance  with  law  keeping  in  view  the
paramount interest and welfare   of  the  child  and  all  relevant  factors
necessary for deciding the custody of minor child  uninfluenced  by  any  of
our observations.
8)    During the pendency of the main custody case,  the  temporary  custody
of  the  child-Roshni  will  be  with  the   respondent   no.   2   -   i.e.
husband/father. The    respondent  no.  2  will  drop  the  child  on  every
Saturday by 6.00 pm. at the petitioner’s residence and collect the child  by
6.00 pm. on the next day (Sunday).
9)    We hope, trust and expect from the appellant and respondent no.  2  to
cooperate with each other for the sake of their minor  child's  welfare  and
taking advantage of temporary custody of the  child  not  to  influence  her
innocent mind by tutoring her and create hatred  against  others  for  their
personal interest-a fact, which we unfortunately noticed  while  interacting
with the child on two occasions. Indeed, we feel that such attempt on  their
part and especially, respondent no. 2 may do more harm to the child in  long
run.
10)   In our view, both parties  being  young  and  highly  educated  should
realize such things for the welfare of their  own  child  and  make  sincere
efforts to come to mutual terms so that every one is able  to  live  happily
and enjoy family life. Such steps, if taken, will always be in the  interest
of everyone including the child who needs protection, guidance,  care,  love
and affection of both mother and father, who were responsible to  bring  her
in this world.
11)   We, therefore, direct the Family Court to hold  regular  sittings  for
reconciliation during the pendency of the  custody  case  and  if  considers
necessary for the welfare and interest of the child pass any interim  orders
till final disposal of the custody case.
12)   With these directions, the appeal stands disposed of finally.
13)   In the light of the order passed hereinabove in the appeal, no  orders
are required in the contempt petition.
                                        …….….……............................J.
                                                            [J. CHELAMESWAR]


                                     …………..................................J.
                                                       [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
New Delhi;
December 09, 2015.
-----------------------
5