MOHAN KUMAR RAYANA Vs. KOMAL MOHAN RAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Appeals are directed against a common judgment and order dated 2nd February, 2007, rendered by the Family Court disposing of two petitions being Petition No. D-65/2005 and D-66/2005 filed by the respondent-wife and the appellant-husband respectively seeking custody of their daughter Anisha. By the impugned judgment the Family Court has directed the appellant to handover custody of Anisha to the respondent immediately on completion of her final terms of the academic session 2006-07 and to provide her all facilities to enjoy extra curricular activities and studies so also to meet all the expenses including food and clothings. The appellant is given access to Anisha every alternate weekends and share 50% of her school vacations, as per mutual agreement with the respondent. The parties were also given directions to consult each other on the questions of Anishas further academic education. Family Court Appeal No. 29 of 2007 has been filed by the husband (hereinafter referred as "the appellant") being aggrieved by the change of custody of Anisha from the appellant to the respondent-wife, who has also filed Family Court Appeal No. 61 of 2007. The appeal filed by the respondent-wife challenges the order of access on every alternate weekends and to share 50% of the school vacations with the appellant. For the sake of convenience, the wife is being referred to as "the respondent".

(2.) IT appears that this litigation had reached the Supreme Court against several orders passed by this court at different stages of the proceedings. We do not wish to make reference to all those orders which were impugned before the Supreme Court as they may not be relevant for deciding the instant appeals on merits. However, it would not be out of place to make reference to the order of the Supreme Court dated 1. 11. 2007 disposing of Civil Appeal Nos. 5088-5097 of 2007 arising out of S. L. P. (C) Nos. 15167-15176 of 2007. All these appeals were filed by the appellant challenging the orders dated 12. 7. 2007, 19. 7. 2007, 27. 7. 2007 and 6. 8. 2007 passed by this court. The Supreme Court disposed of those appeals with the following directions:

(3.) WE do not propose to narrate the facts in detail at this stage since we may have to make reference to the facts in the course of this judgment. The basic facts to the extent as may be necessary to be mentioned at this stage are as follows: The appellant-father and the respondent-mother tied nuptial knot at Hyderabad on 11th August, 2000 according to Hindu rites and after their marriage they moved to their matrimonial home at Chembur, Mumbai. The daughter - Anisha was born to them on 2nd March, 2002. Initially, there were no disputes as such between the parties but after Anishas birth, according to the respondent, atmosphere in the matrimonial home began to change and it was due to the behaviour of the appellant towards her on account of addiction to alcohol in the company of his friends. In June 2004, Anisha was admitted to a play school at Chembur, Mumbai. At one stage, in view of marital discord, according to the appellant, the mother allegedly abandoned the matrimonial home. That happened in July 2004. As per the appellant, the respondent abandoned the matrimonial home and Anisha and sought shelter with her parents in Bandra, whereas according to the respondent, she left the matrimonial home in July 2004 with her daughter and she continued to send Anisha to Kinder campus school at Chembur, the area where the father was residing, and permitted him on occasions to keep back Anisha at his residence. According to the respondent in October 2005, taking advantage of such a situation, the appellant kept Anisha back with him and did not return her to the respondent. That compelled the respondent to meet Anisha in the school campus, but since that arrangement did not work in the last week of November 2005, she approached the Chembur police station and with their help got back the custody of Anisha. It is alleged that on 30th November, 2005 the appellant, with the help of some of his associates, forcibly removed Anisha from the respondents custody and made completely inaccessible to the respondent. It is in such compelling circumstances the respondent -mother moved the Family Court seeking custody of the minor daughter under section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (for short "the Act of 1956") read with section 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards act, 1890 (for short "the Act of 1890" ). The appellant-father also filed the custody petition and both the petitions were heard and decided by the Family Court vide judgment and order dated 2. 2. 2007.