Case Brief: Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar

Name of the Case	Soumitra Kumar Nahar v. Parul Nahar
Citation	MANU/SC/0197/2020
Date of the Judgement	18.02.2020
Petitioner	Soumitra Kumar Nahar
Respondent	Parul Nahar
Bench/ Judges	A.M. Khanwilkar and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.
Statutes Involved	Guardianship and Wards Act,1890
Important Articles/ Sections	Guardianship and Wards Act,1890 - Section 7

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant-husband and the respondent-wife got married as per Hindu rites and customs in 2001. Out of their wedlock, they had a baby girl and a baby boy. After the birth of the second child, some matrimonial differences appeared, and the parties started making allegations against each other. The appellant-husband filed a guardianship petition under the Guardianship and Wards Act,1890, and a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and adultery. 

The appellant-husband’s father filed a suit before the High Court, praying for a mandatory injunction against the respondent-wife from entering into his self-acquired property. The High Court granted the interim mandatory injunction. This was challenged by the respondent-wife before the division bench, which passed a consent order for settlement. However, this was not complied with by the respondent-wife. The husband’s father filed an application before the High Court, which led to the clarification that the consent order resolved issues of maintenance, domestic violence, custody, and visitation rights.

The husband filed an application before the Family Court and sought implementation of the High Court’s order. However, this application was rejected. This was challenged before the High Court.

The High Court directed mediation and interaction with a child psychologist. Subsequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the wife to comply with the consent terms regarding visitation rights for her son. However, the visitation rights for the daughter were denied unless she herself desired to meet her father.

The husband challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court. 

PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Guardianship and Wards Act,1890

Section 7: Power of the court to make an order regarding guardianship

Section 8: It specifies who is entitled to apply for the order

Section 9: It deals with the jurisdiction of courts to entertain an application

Section 10: Form of application 

Section 11: Procedure on the admission of the application

LEGAL ISSUES

The following legal issues were determined by the Supreme Court:

1. Whether the High Court justified in denying the visitation rights for the minor daughter while granting them for their son?

ARGUMENTS FROM THE APPELLANT’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the appellant’s side made the following contention:

1. He contended that the High Court erred in declining the visitation rights to his daughter when the consent order covered both children.
2. He argued that there should be full compliance with the consent order.
3. The wife had not complied with the consent order, including not vacating his father’s house and obstructing visitation.

ARGUMENTS FROM THE RESPONDENT’S SIDE

The learned counsel from the respondent’s side made the following contention:

1. Sanjana expressed her unwillingness to meet her father, and therefore, the High Court’s decision was appropriate.
2. Forcing a child to meet their parents against their will will be detrimental to their well-being.

COURT’S STANCE AND JUDGMENT

The bench disposed of the petition.

The courts observed that in a custody battle, no matter which parent wins but it is the child who always loses and they pay the heaviest price.

The bench upheld the High Court’s order and directed her to comply with the consent order regarding the visitation rights of the son, while acknowledging the High Court’s reasoning for declining forced visitation, but for her own desire. 

The bench observed that parental responsibility does not end with the breakdown of a marriage. Both parents are required to act in the best interest of their children, regardless of the personal disagreements between them.

The Court ordered that children should be placed in a boarding school as a neutral environment, while noting that it is not in the best interest of the children to remain with either of the parents.

CONCLUSION

This judgment is a landmark in highlighting the court’s sensitivity to the daughter’s wishes and the potential harm of forcing her. The court even relied on the expert opinion in order to come to the conclusion that is best in the children’s interest. It set a precedent for the use of boarding schools in extreme cases to safeguard the welfare of the children.