- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) SINCE both the parties to the special leave petitions are before us, Notice of the Appeals is waived on behalf of the respondent, Komal Mohan Rayana. The appeals arise out of circumstances wherein owing to disputes and differences between a married couple, the child bom of the wedlock has become the object of a tussle for custody between the two parents. The subject matter of these appeals are four orders passed by the Bombay High court on 12th July 2007, 19th July 2007, 27th July 2007 and 6th August 2007 in two appeals from a petition No. D-65/2005 before the Family Court. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which these orders came to be passed, it will be necessary to state a few facts leading to the commencement of the proceedings before the Family Court.
(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the appellant herein, who is the husband of the respondent, married the respondent on 2nd March 2002. A daughter was born to them and she was named Anisha. Initially there were no disputes as such between the parties but after the daughters birth, the atmosphere in the marital home began to change. We shall not go into the causes as alleged by the respondent since such allegations are not relevant for our purpose, but we can only observe that one of the reasons given by the respondent for the changed circumstances was the change in behaviour of the appellant towards her, on account of addiction to alcohol in the company of his friends. In any event, there appears to have been some marital discord, which resulted in the respondent leaving the matrimonial house in July 2004 with her minor daughter and seeking shelter with her parents at Bandra. According to the respondent, during the said period she continued to send Anisha to the kinder Campus School at Chembur, the area where the appellant was residing and permitted him on occasions to keep back Anisha at his residence. The respondent has alleged that in October 2005, taking advantage of such a situation, the appellant kept Anisha back with him and did not return her to the respondents custody. This compelled the respondent to meet her daughter in the school campus, but since this arrangement did not also work out, in the last week of November 2005, she approached the Chembur police and with their help got back the custody of her daughter. A series of allegations were thereafter made that on 30th November, 2005 the appellant, with the help of some of his associates, forcibly removed Anisha from the respondents custody and made her completely inaccessible to the respondent. It is in such compelling circumstances that she moved the Family court seeking custody of her minor daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 read with Ss. 7 and 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.;