CHANDANI DEVI vs RAM KUMAR MEHRA

(2026: JHHC:31634-DB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A No. 122 of 2024

Chandani Devi, aged about 32 years, daughter of Debi Das, resident of
Mohalla Ambedkar Nagar, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda
At present residing at Thari Dulampur, P.O. Deosang, P.S. Kunda, District
Deoghar, Jharkhand …. .... …. Respondent / Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar Mehra, son of Jag Jeevan Mehra, resident of Ambedkar
Nagar, Godda, P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda
... ... ... ... Petitioner / Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
---------
For the Appellant: Mr Arvind Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
Mr Prathik, Advocate
Mr Shambhu Nath Tiwary, Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms Rajni Singh, Advocate
---------
14 / Dated: 29.10.2026
Per M.S. Sonak, C.J :

1. Heard Mr Prathik, who appears with Mr Shambhu Nath Tiwary for the
appellant (Chandani Devi), and Ms Rajni Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent (Ram Kumar Mehra).
2. Ms Anu Priya and Ms Nilu Priya, the two minor daughters aged 15 and
14 years respectively, are also present, and we have interacted with
them, since this case is being taken up in chambers. Similarly, Mr Ram
Kumar Mehra (respondent) and his father, Mr Jagjeevan Mehra, are
also present, and we have interacted with them as well.

3. At the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, we propose to dispose of this appeal finally because a broad-
based agreement has been reached between the parties.
4. This appeal is against the judgment dated 30.08.2023, followed by the
decree dated 18.09.2023, in Original Suit No. 70 of 2020, passed by
the Family Court, Godda, which directed the appellant (Chandani
Devi) to hand over the custody and guardianship of Ms Nilu Priya to
Mr Ram Kumar Mehra (respondent).
1

(2026: JHHC:31634-DB)

5. Presently, Ms Anu Priya, the elder daughter, stays with her father Ram
Kumar Mehra (respondent) at Godda and is studying at St. Thomas
School, Godda, which is affiliated to the ICSE.
6. Ms Nilu Priya, the younger daughter, is presently studying at Kasturba
Gandhi Balika Uchh Vidyalaya, Rohini, Deoghar. This school is a
boarding school where, Ms Nilu Priya presently resides during the
school terms. Earlier, Ms Nilu Priya stayed with her maternal
grandparents in Deoghar. However, Ms Nilu Priya’s maternal
grandmother passed away in October 2025.
7. Mr Prathik, learned counsel for the appellant (Chandani Devi), on
specific instructions, stated that the appellant is presently satisfied with
the present position, but visitation rights must be assured to the
appellant. He further submitted that if the two minor daughters wish to
come and stay with the appellant for some time during holidays or
vacations, or if the appellant wishes to have them stay with her during
holidays, vacations or some special occasions, liberty may be reserved
to the appellant to apply to the appropriate Court for such relief.
8. Mr Prathik submitted that custody orders should never be regarded as
final, and the parties should always be given an opportunity to apply
for variation if the situation demands it or the need arises.
9. Ms Rajni Singh, learned counsel for the respondent and the respondent
present in Court, submitted that the respondent has no objection,
insofar as visitation rights are concerned. She further submitted that if
and when the appellant files any application, as suggested by Mr
Prathik, the Court may issue directions that the application be
considered in accordance with law, after adverting to all relevant
parameters, including the wishes of the two daughters and their
paramount interest.
2

(2026: JHHC:31634-DB)

10. Ms Rajni Singh, learned counsel for the respondent, tried to submit that
it would be better if Ms Nilu Priya is also admitted to St. Thomas
School, Godda, so that both daughters can study in the same school
and stay with the father at Godda.
11. Accordingly, we interacted with Ms Nilu Priya to ascertain her wishes.
Ms Nilu Priya clearly stated that she is comfortable studying at
Kasturba Gandhi Balika Uchh Vidyalaya, Rohini, Deoghar, by staying
in the boarding/hostel. She stated that she would prefer this
arrangement to continue, with both parents able to visit her on the
assigned visiting days/hours. She stated that during holidays or
vacations, she would like to stay with her father.

12. Though we tried to gently reason with Ms Nilu Priya about the
advantages of shifting to St. Thomas School at Godda from the next
academic session, she clearly stated that she was comfortable with the
boarding attached to her present school at Deoghar and would like to
continue there.
13. We have been informed that Kasturba Gandhi Balika Uchh Vidyalaya,
Rohini, Deoghar, is also a good school. If Ms Nilu Priya has settled up
in the said school and its boarding, there is no point in disturbing this
situation. Ultimately, in these matters, the interest of the minor child is
paramount. Such interest would not be compromised, but rather, it
would be furthered by allowing the present situation to continue.
14. If, at a later stage, the respondent wishes to change Ms Nilu Priya’s
school, such a change shall be applied for or effected only after
obtaining Ms Nilu Priya’s consent. This is because Ms Nilu Priya is
already 14 years old. From our interactions with her, we are satisfied
that she can make decisions which concern her. Therefore, we think
that her autonomy should not be ignored.
3

(2026: JHHC:31634-DB)

15. The appellant (Chandani Devi) is granted visitation rights, and the
respondent should not obstruct her from visiting and meeting both Ms
Anu Priya and Ms Nilu Priya at all reasonable times, after giving due
intimation to the respondent. Mr Ram Kumar Mehra, present in Court
with his father, assured the Court that he will treat the appellant with
the dignity she deserves, keeping in mind that she is the mother of his
two minor daughters.
16. Similarly, Mr Prathik, the learned counsel for the appellant, has also
stated that the appellant will treat Mr Ram Kumar Mehra and his
family members with all the dignity that they are entitled to, given the
fact that they are also the closest relations of her minor daughters, Ms
Anu Priya and Ms Nilu Priya.
17. We also grant the appellant liberty to apply to the Family Court for
variation of this order, or, rather, the impugned judgment and decree,
to the extent of seeking relief that the two minor daughters stay with,
or spend time with, the appellant during holidays, vacations, or special
occasions. If such an application is made, the Family Court will decide
it in accordance with law. This would also include ascertaining the
wishes of the minor children, which would be one of the
considerations, though not the sole one, in deciding such an
application. All contentions of all parties that may arise are specifically
kept open to be decided by the Family Court if and when any such
occasion arises.
18. At this stage, we note that the appellant (Chandani Devi), pursuant to
the decree of divorce which she has not challenged, has already
remarried and has a child with her second husband. Accordingly, we
appreciate the appellant’s stance of not insisting on guardianship or
custody, but restricting her claim to visitation rights. At the same time,
4

(2026: JHHC:31634-DB)

we also appreciate the approach of Mr Ram Kumar Mehra and his
father, Jagjeevan Mehra, in welcoming the claim for visitation rights.
19. Now that the parties have reached the above agreement, we see no
reason to disturb the decree insofar as it relates to the guardianship and
custody of the minor children. The decree is affirmed, but with the
above-referred modifications, most of which are based on the parties'
agreement.
20. As contended by Mr Prathik, the custody orders, notwithstanding their
nomenclature, are never permanent. If and when any situation arises,
the parties may seek variation from the competent Court by making out
a case to that effect. Such liberty is always reserved to the parties.

21. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for
costs. The impugned judgment and decree is affirmed, but subject to
the modification referred to above. Pending interlocutory applications,
if any, are also disposed of.
22. We appreciate the parties' and their Advocates' reasonable stance in
resolving the disputes between the parties while keeping in mind the
interests of their two minor daughters.


(M. S. Sonak, C.J.)


(Manoj Prasad, J.)
October 29, 2026
Ranjeet/Cp. 2
NAFR
Uploaded on 02.11.2026

5