SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA Vs. PERRY KANSAGRA
LAWS(SC)-2021-10-32
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on October 07,2021

Smriti Madan Kansagra Appellant
VERSUS
Perry Kansagra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. - (1.) Civil Appeal No.3559 of 2020 arose from Guardianship Petition filed by Perry Kansagra (hereinafter referred to as 'Perry'), father of minor named Aditya Vikram Kansagra (hereinafter referred to as 'Aditya'), under Sections 7, 8, 10, 11 of the Act [The Guardianship and Wards Act, 1890] before the District Court, Saket, New Delhi. Perry is a person of Indian origin and Gujarati by descent. His grandfather migrated to Kenya in 1935 and settled there. The family has business interests in Kenya and United Kingdom. Perry holds dual citizenship of Kenya as well as United Kingdom. Perry got married to Smriti Madan Kansagra (hereinafter referred to as 'Smriti'), an Indian citizen, on 29.07.2007 at New Delhi. Initially, the couple stayed at Nairobi, Kenya but Smriti returned to India in 2009. The couple was blessed with a son ­ Aditya on 02.12.2009 at New Delhi. Except for a brief period when the couple had gone to Kenya in 2012, Aditya always stayed with Smriti in Delhi till the disposal of aforestated Civil Appeal No.3559 of 2020.
(2.) On 26.5.2012, Civil Suit (O.S.) No.1604 of 2012 was filed by Smriti against Perry and his parents in the High Court [The High Court of Delhi at New Delhi] seeking following reliefs: "(a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, representatives, servants and/ or attorneys in perpetuity form in any manner removing the child either from the lawful custody of the Plaintiff No.2 or removing the child from Delhi; the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court or accessing the child in his School "Toddlers Train" at Sunder Nagar, New Delhi. (b) Pass an order directing the Airport Authority of India, Immigration Authority of India, 'FRRO' to ensure compliance of prayer 'a' above. (c) Pass a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, representatives, servants and/ or attorneys in perpetuity from meeting Plaintiff No.1 without the consent/ presence of Plaintiff No.2"
(3.) On 25.05.2012, an ex-parte ad-interim order was passed by the High Court restraining Perry from removing Aditya from the custody of his mother. In this suit, I.A. No.12429 of 2012 was filed by Perry seeking access to Aditya. Though Smriti was not averse to Perry's meeting Aditya, it was submitted that the meetings be held only under her supervision. By its order dated 13.07.2012, the High Court permitted Perry to meet Aditya under the supervision of Smriti. Similar orders were passed from time to time.;


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