Tatineni Mayuri vs Edara Baldev

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2471-2473 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP (c) Nos. 28565-28567 of 2014)

TATINENI MAYURI APPELLANT

VERSUS

EDARA BALDEV RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The marriage between the appellant and respondent took

place on 2.9.1999. A female child was born to them on

15.06.2006 and she has been named Jasmitha. In the year 2011,

the appellant filed a petition before the Family Court for

divorce. The Family Court allowed the petition and granted

decree of divorce. Permanent custody of the child was given

to the appellant-wife and the respondent-husband was given

visitation rights during weekend.

3. Aggrieved, the respondent-husband approached the High

Court. By impugned judgment dated 25.07.2014, the High Court Signature Not Verified allowed the appeals and remanded the matters to the Family Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2016.04.07 14:26:14 IST Reason: Court with a direction that the arrangement as to the custody

1 of the child would be continued purely as an interim measure,

during the pendency of the matters before the Family Court.

4. Aggrieved, the wife has come up before this Court in

appeals. It appears that this Court tried several rounds

by all possible methods to purchase peace between the parties.

Respondent-husband was hopeful of reunion. It seems that his

hope is fading away and now he has submitted that in case the

appellant so insists, he is prepared for divorce on mutual

consent on appropriate terms on all aspects including custody

of the child.

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on both

sides, we are of the view that in the interest of all the

parties, the further steps should be taken before the Family

Court, Hyderabad. We only want to remind both, the father and

the mother, that they may fight endlessly but the one person

who is sandwiched, disturbed, pained, shocked and if not

spoiled is their daughter. If the future of the daughter is

kept in mind by both the father and the mother, they will

think of disassociating themselves from all other differences

between them. We are sure the parties would be in a position

to reach a workable solution with regard to custody. After

all the child needs both father and mother.

6. With the above observations, we dispose of the appeals

2 directing the Family Court to take things forward and settle

all the related aspects including custody of the child,

bearing in mind the observation made by us hereinabove.

7. The High Court in the impugned judgment has directed that

the arrangement made by the Family Court will continue as an

interim measure. We are informed that the said arrangement

has been subsequently varied by order dated 29.4.2015 after

interacting with the child and thereafter the arrangement is

that the child would be given in custody of father once in a

fortnight from 10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.

8. The custody as above, will be available with the father

on first three saturdays of the month between 10.00 a.m. to

8.00 p.m. that is to say, from the 1 st week of April, 2016

onwards. As far as the other times like vacations are

concerned, it will be open to the parties to file application

before the Family Court. We also make it clear that this is

purely a temporary arrangement and it is for the Family Court

to pass appropriate orders as the situation warrants.

Parties will appear before the Family Court on 25.04.2016.

9. In view of the apprehension expressed by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant, we make it clear that the

impugned judgment will stand substituted by our order with the

modification with regard to the further process on divorce.

3 The Family Court will make an endeavour to dispose of the

matter expeditiously and preferably within six months from the

date of first appearance as above.

10. The offer made by the respondent for deposit of

Rs.50,000/- per month, in addition to the deposit of

Rs.5,00,000/- will continue. In case, it is found difficult

to work out the order as above, we grant liberty to the

parties concerned to approach this Court.

.................J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]

....................J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI;

MARCH 03,2016

4 ITEM NO.5 COURT NO.11 SECTION XIIA

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 28565-28567/2014 (Arising out of impugned common judgment and final order dated 25.07.2014 in FCA Nos. 253, 255 and 283 of 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh)

TATINENI MAYURI Appellant(s)

VERSUS

EDARA BALDEV Respondent(s)

(with appln. (s) for directions and permission to file additional documents and interim relief and office report)

Date : 03/03/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Balaji Srinivasan,Adv. Mr. V. Subramanian, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. R.Basanth, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sridhar Potaraju,Adv.

Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Adv. Mr. Arjun Singh, Adv.

Mr. Mukunda Rao Angara, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable judgment.

All pending application(s) shall stand disposed of.

(Rajni Mukhi) (Renu Diwan) Sr. P.A. Court Master

(Signed non-reporable judgment is placed on the file)

5