Holding

The Supreme Court directed the Family Court to dispose of the guardianship case on merits within six months, granted temporary custody to the father with weekly visitation to the mother, and ordered regular reconciliation sittings to safeguard the child's welfare.

Summary

The wife filed a habeas corpus petition seeking the production and return of her minor daughter from the husband. The High Court dismissed the petition and directed the Family Court to decide the pending custody case. On appeal, the Supreme Court ordered the Family Court to dispose of the guardianship case on its merits within six months, emphasizing the paramount interest and welfare of the child. It granted temporary custody to the father, allowing the mother visitation every Saturday, and instructed the Family Court to hold regular reconciliation sittings and issue any necessary interim orders. The Court cautioned both parents against influencing the child and urged them to cooperate for the child’s welfare. The appeal was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate scope of a habeas corpus petition in a child custody dispute?
Can the Supreme Court direct a Family Court to dispose of a pending guardianship case within a specific timeframe?
What interim custody arrangements are permissible to protect the child's welfare during pendency of the case?

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.226

Subjects

habeas corpuschild custodyguardianshipfamily lawwelfare of childinterim ordersreconciliationtemporary custody

Judgment

[2015] 11 S.C.R. 900

A RUCHIKA ABBI &ANR.
v.
STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI &
ANR.
Criminal Appeal No.1683 of2015
B
DECEMBER 09, 2015
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR
SAPRE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.226- Habeas corpus
c petition- By wife- Against her husband- Seeking production
and return of her minor daughter- High Court disposed of
the petition, directing the Family Court to dispose of the
pending custody case- On appeal, Family Court directed to
dispose of the pending custody case keeping in view the
D paramount interest and welfare of the child - During
pendency of the custody case, temporary custody granted
to husband/father with direction to father to drop the child for
one day in a week to the mother/wife- Parents advised not
to take advantage of the temporary custody for tutoring the
E child and create hatred against others- Parents also advised
to come to mutual terms in the interest of the child- Family
Court directed to hold regular sittings for reconciliation during
pendency of the custody case- Family Law- Child Welfare.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal
F Appeal No. 1683 of 2015
From Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2014 of High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1735 of 2014.
WITH
Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 382 of 2015 in SLP (~rl.) No. 2372/2015
G Pritpal Nijjar, Aditya Singla, Ambika Nijjar, Am it Kumar,
Ritika Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, for the Appellants.
Jagjit Singh, Bhagat Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Dr.
Abhishek Atrey, P. K. Dey, D. s. Mahra, for the Respondents.
The Order of the Court was delivered by
H
RUCHIKAABBI v. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL 901
TERRITORY OF DELHI

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. A
2. 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 Habe~s Corpus writ petition filed
by the appellant herein for the production and return of the minor B
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 C
~ftheir minordaughter-Roshni.
4. So far as this appeal is concerned, as mentioned
above, it aris_es out of final judgment and order dated
07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
0
a habeas corpus petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No. 1735 of2014
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 E
to
Family Court dispose ofthe 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 F
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 wtth the child, we feel that it would be just
and proper to direct the Family Court, which has seized of the G
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 Jaw keeping in view the
paramount interest and welfare of the child and all relevant H
f
902 .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS'_'.- . ; [2.015] 11 S.C.R.
:. ~- .__>.-.. .: . . ,: -· .

. . . \ . . . . ." -.
A factors
.
necessary
. . .
for
.
deciding
. . the~. -.
custody
. -. : ..
of minor child
. ..
uninfluenced by any of our observat1o~s. ·-. _- ·. . . _
· · ~ - D~ring the penden~y of the mai~ c~stody case, the
tempo·r.ciry ~i.Jstod{ of_the child_-RC?shni yvil_ l be with the
respondent' no. 2 ~i.e. husband/father: The respondent no. 2
B 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 arid expect from the appelfant and
.
;

- respondent no. 2 to cooperate with _ each other~or the sake of
C their 1iiinor child's welfare and taking advafltage of temporary
custody of the child not to influence her inno'cent mind by
tutoring her arid create hatred against others fc:>r their personal
• interest-a fact. which we unfortunately notic~d while interacting
with the child on two occasions. Indeed. we feel that such
0
attempt on their part and especially, respondent no. 2 may do
more harm to the child in long run.
10. rn our view, both parties being young and highly
educated should realize such things. for the -
welfare oi their own
· E child and make sincere efforts to GO me 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 a~d father, who were responsible
F- to bring her in this world.
11. We, therefore, direct the Fa miry 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
G custody case.
12. W ith the-s e 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.
H Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal disposed of.

•