YASHITA SAHU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-2020-1-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 20,2020

Yashita Sahu Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SHARADA DEVI VS. MAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
BISHANTAK AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
SHIGORIKA SINGH VS. DR. ABHINANDAN SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-92] [REFERRED TO]
NIMISH S. AGRAWAL VS. RUHI AGRAWAL [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-49] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAMA M.S. VS. K.P. SHYAM [LAWS(KER)-2022-9-6] [REFERRED TO]
VASUDHA SETHI VS. KIRAN V. BHASKAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-1-39] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2021-3-211] [REFERRED TO]
RICHA GUPTA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-2020-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK BEBY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-120] [REFERRED TO]
KINRI DHIR VS. VEER SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2022-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
N. PAVAN KUMAR VS. R MAHESWARI [LAWS(APH)-2021-9-65] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. MEENAKSHI AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-12-21] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPA NAYAK VS. PITAMBER NAI [LAWS(CHH)-2022-3-48] [REFERRED TO]
RAMKRISHNAN BALASUBRAMANIAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
MR. ABHINAV KOHLI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA \ MRS. SHWETA TIWARI @ MRS. SHWETA ABHINAV KOHLI [LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-90] [REFERRED TO]
RAKESH TULSIDAS RATHOD VS. JAYRAJ VISHRAM VAPIKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2022-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYA MAHANTESH MULEMANE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-3-26] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER ADVAIT SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2021-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
MASTER DEVANSH AGARWAL(DETENUE) THRU. DEEPTI GOEL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
VAIBHAVI SHARMA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-53] [REFERRED TO]
RINKU RUKSHAR VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
AISHA VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
RATNAMALA PANDURANG ZATE VS. PANDURANG UDHAV ZATE [LAWS(BOM)-2021-7-3] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN V. BHASKAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2021-8-114] [REFERRED TO]
GIRISH ARUNAGIRI AMERICAN CITIZEN VS. MAHALAKSHMI SENTHIL NATHAN [LAWS(MAD)-2021-10-107] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEER HAMSA RAMLA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-4-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHIJU JOY.A. VS. NISHA [LAWS(KER)-2021-3-28] [REFERRED TO]
SWAMINATHAN KUNCHU ACHARYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2022-5-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

DEEPAK GUPTA,J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Yashita Sahu (hereinafter referred to as the wife) and Varun Varma (hereinafter referred to as the husband), got married on 30.05.2016 in India. The husband was already working in the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as the USA). The wife accompanied the husband to the USA on 17.07.2016. A daughter named Kiyara Verma, was born to the couple on 03.05.2017. She is a citizen of the USA. The relationship between the husband and the wife got strained and they made various allegations and counter allegations against each other. The wife applied for an Emergency Protection Order on 25.08.2018 to the Norfolk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (hereinafter referred to as the Norfolk Court), praying for her protection and an ex parte preliminary protection order was passed against the husband. Thereafter, on 29.08.2018, the wife instituted a petition in the same Court seeking sole custody of the minor child. She also filed a petition praying that the husband be directed to give monetary support to her and the minor child. The said Court passed an order on 26.09.2018 in terms of the agreement reached between the parties. This agreement is part of the order and reads as follows:
"Father to continue paying rent and utilities @ the marital residence for October, 2018 and November, 2018. Father will add mother to lease as an authorized occupants or leaseholder. Father to pay mother 150/week for child support for October and November, 2018/ and 200/week for December, 2018. Parties to work together to reach a resolution as to who will continue occupy the martial residence after November, 2018. Mother to look for employment consistent with her educational and professional experience. Mother and father have joint legal custody of minor child and shared physical custody of child father's parenting time to start Thursday September, 27, 2018 @ noon until Saturday September 29, 2018 @ noon. Thereafter, the parties are to share parenting time as follows : mother to have child every other week from Saturday @ noon until Wednesday @ noon and in alternating weeks from Saturday @ noon until Tuesday @ noon. Father shall have parenting time on Wednesday @ noon until Saturday with alternating weeks two @ noon until Saturday @ noon (i.e. 4 days on, 3 days off switching weeks for each parent) parents shall allow whatsapp calling with child with custodial parent at least 5 min. per evening upon reasonable notice to other parent. Parents shall use a third neutral party to facilitate exchanging the child. Parties shall corporate with each other and third party if noon exchange time is not feasible all parties will surrender their passports, including child's passport, to guardian ad liten. Mother to reside @ marital residence until December 1, 2018 wherein mother will vacate the premises or assume full responsibility of the rent and utilities thereafter."

As per this order, amongst other things the husband was to add the wife as an authorised lease holder in the rented premises and he was to pay weekly support to the child @ $150 per week for the months of October and November, 2018 and $200 per week for the month of December, 2018. Joint, legal custody and shared physical custody of the child was given to the parents, with each parent being given individual parenting time. As per the agreement the child was also permitted to talk to the other parent by WhatsApp calling, after reasonable notice. It is important to note that it was clearly mentioned that the parties shall cooperate with each other and try to reach an amicable settlement with the help of a neutral third party. If a settlement was not possible then they were to surrender their passports including the child's passport to the guardian ad litem. The wife was directed to reside in the marital residence till December 1, 2018, whereafter she had to vacate the premises or assume full responsibility of the rent and utilities.

(3.)It is not disputed before us that the wife, along with the child left the USA and came to India on 30.09.2018 i.e. after 26.09.2018 and before 01.10.2018, which was the next date fixed before the Norfolk Court.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.