Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2471-2473 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 28565-28567 of 2014)
TATINENI MAYURI APPELLANT
VERSUS
EDARA BALDEV RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The marriage between the appellant and respondent took
place on 2.9.1999. A female child was born to them on
15.06.2006 and she has been named Jasmitha. In the year 2011,
the appellant filed a petition before the Family Court for
divorce. The Family Court allowed the petition and granted
JUDGMENT
decree of divorce. Permanent custody of the child was given
to the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was given
visitation rights during weekend.
3. Aggrieved, the respondent-husband approached the High
Court. By impugned judgment dated 25.07.2014, the High Court
allowed the appeals and remanded the matters to the Family
Court with a direction that the arrangement as to the custody
1
Page 1
of the child would be continued purely as an interim measure,
during the pendency of the matters before the Family Court.
4. Aggrieved, the wife has come up before this Court in
appeals. It appears that this Court tried several rounds
by all possible methods to purchase peace between the parties.
Respondent-husband was hopeful of reunion. It seems that his
hope is fading away and now he has submitted that in case the
appellant so insists, he is prepared for divorce on mutual
consent on appropriate terms on all aspects including custody
of the child.
5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both
sides, we are of the view that in the interest of all the
parties, the further steps should be taken before the Family
Court, Hyderabad. We only want to remind both, the father and
the mother, that they may fight endlessly but the one person
who is sandwiched, disturbed, pained, shocked and if not
JUDGMENT
spoiled is their daughter. If the future of the daughter is
kept in mind by both the father and the mother, they will
think of disassociating themselves from all other differences
between them. We are sure the parties would be in a position
to reach a workable solution with regard to custody. After
all the child needs both father and mother.
6. With the above observations, we dispose of the appeals
2
Page 2
directing the Family Court to take things forward and settle
all the related aspects including custody of the child,
bearing in mind the observation made by us hereinabove.
7. The High Court in the impugned judgment has directed that
the arrangement made by the Family Court will continue as an
interim measure. We are informed that the said arrangement
has been subsequently varied by order dated 29.4.2015 after
interacting with the child and thereafter the arrangement is
that the child would be given in custody of father once in a
fortnight from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
8. The custody as above, will be available with the father
on first three saturdays of the month between 10.00 a.m. to
st
8.00 p.m. that is to say, from the 1 week of April, 2016
onwards. As far as the other times like vacations are
concerned, it will be open to the parties to file application
before the Family Court. We also make it clear that this is
JUDGMENT
purely a temporary arrangement and it is for the Family Court
to pass appropriate orders as the situation warrants.
Parties will appear before the Family Court on 25.04.2016.
9. In view of the apprehension expressed by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant, we make it clear that the
impugned judgment will stand substituted by our order with the
modification with regard to the further process on divorce.
3
Page 3
The Family Court will make an endeavour to dispose of the
matter expeditiously and preferably within six months from the
date of first appearance as above.
10. The offer made by the respondent for deposit of
Rs.50,000/- per month, in addition to the deposit of
Rs.5,00,000/- will continue. In case, it is found difficult
to work out the order as above, we grant liberty to the
parties concerned to approach this Court.
.................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
....................J.
[ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 03,2016
JUDGMENT
4
Page 4