CASE NAME: SUGIRTHA versus GOWTHAM
CASE NUMBER: CIVIL APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 18240 OF 2024
DATE: 20 DECEMBER 2024
QUORUM: HON’BLE JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH AND JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
FACTS OF THE CASE
An appeal through SLP was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the judgement dated 21st March 2024, of the Madras High Court’s Madurai Bench. The High Court had dismissed the appellant-mother’s appeal and upheld the judgement passed by the respective Family Court. The Family Court had ordered interim visitation rights to the respondent-father. In this particular case, the couple got married on 9th September 2021, and a daughter was born to them on 6th June 2022, both the parents are doctor by profession, but shortly after the birth of the daughter that is in June 2023, the mother who is appellant here before the Supreme Court filed a petition for divorce that is dissolution for the marriage under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty. Mother claimed cruelty under domestic violence against her and newly born daughter. And also mentioned that the husband responded deserted both of them on 1st July 2022, that is just 1 month after the child was born, and on 16th August 2022 the father respondent came back and attempted to kill both mother and daughter, and mother also stated that the responded used to beat up the child for no reason, and she also informed the court that they are living separately since 18th August 2022.
After this the Responded father filed an application under Section 26 of Hindu Marriage Act, in the divorce proceedings seeking to grant him visitation rights during the pendency of their divorce matter. After which the said family court granted the rights and accepted the request of the father, with certain terms and conditions such as the mother should take the child every Sunday to Karur, Tamil Nadu and handover the daughter to the father between 10 AM to 12 PM, for two hours at the campus of Temple.
After this the appellant mother approached the High Court against the judgement given by the Family Court, in which court asked her to handover the child every Sunday for two hours as father-respondent was granted the visitation rights. But High Court clearly set aside the appeal filed by the mother and uplifted the order of the family court and stated that father is also a natural guardian of the child and he is also entitled to have the custody of the child and court also attempted to unite the parents but failed, the High Court just modified some terms of the order passed by the family court but totally denied the request filed by the appellant mother in this case.
After the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, the appellant mother reached the Apex Court and filed an appeal challenging the judgement of the High Court.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether the appellant-mother who has filed for the divorce case based on cruelty and an act of domestic violence by the father on her daughter be asked to travel 300 KM just to handover the child to the father who is alleged to cause danger to the child’s life,
- Whether the respondent-father be given the visitation rights for his child knowing the he is alleged to be danger for the child’s life,
- Whether the respondent-father be given the visitation right of a 2 years old child knowing that divorce case is still pending before the court and the child is under the custody of mother.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT- Any marriage solemnised, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party
- SECTION 13 (1) (ia) OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT – has, after the solemnisation of the marriage, treated the petitioner with cruelty;
- SECTION 26 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT- Custody of the child, which also talks about the visitation rights.
- Section 2 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005-
- (a) aggrieved person means any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent;
- (b) child means any person below the age of eighteen years and includes any adopted, step or foster child;
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS BY THE APPELLANTS
- Appellant argued that since the child is just 2 years old the court should consider that a minor child that too a girl child should not be handed over to a responded father knowing the fact the father is alleged to cause domestic violence to the child and deserted the child soon after the birth,
- Appellant also stated that travelling traveling 300 KM carrying a 2 years old child in a single day is not an easy task and it is not healthy for the child.
- Appellant argued for the better interest of the child and for the safety of the child it is important that the child should be kept away from the hand of father-respondent hence the visitation rights should not be granted to the responded.
NO ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDENT
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court after looking into the case properly and after reading all the facts and arguments put by the appellant mother passed a judgment considering the best interest of the child, looking into the tender age, health, well-being of the child, set aside the terms and conditions put by the respective Family Court which was backed by the High Court and directed a new terms and conditions for the father-respondent, the Supreme Court stated that visitation rights is the right of the father here as he is also the natural guardian of the child and father can also claim the child’s custody but Supreme Court asked the father to visit the child in Madurai where the mother-appellant along with the child resides, but the apex court mentioned clearly that the responded father is allowed to visit his child every Sunday between 10 AM to 2 PM at a public park in Madurai and appellant must be present there and appellant should stay at a distance of 10 feet from the respondent. Hence this appeal is partly allowed in respect of visitation rights, and the Supreme Court modified the directions of High Court and Family Court.
CONCLUSION
To conclude, the Supreme Court modified the directions and judgements delivered by the High Court and Family Court with respect to the custody of the child and uplifted the right of a father when it comes to the visitation rights which is granted under the Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act. And the court also promoted the safety and well being of the child by changing the directions and terms and condition of the visitation rights and considered the child’s best interest, tender age, and health.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in array od sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firms, best lawyers, best family lawyers, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer,”
WRITTEN BY SALIL GAURAV
