Page 1

                 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1683 OF 2015

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.)No. 2372 of 2015)

Ruchika Abbi & Anr. ………Appellant(s)

VERSUS   State of National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr.      ………Respondent(s)

WITH

CONTEMPT  PETITION (C) No. 382/2015  In  

S.L.P. (CRL.) NO. 2372/2015  

ORDER

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

(1) Leave granted.

(2) This appeal is filed against the final judgment  

and  order  dated  07.11.2014  passed  by  the  High  

Court  of  Delhi  at  New  Delhi  in  Writ  Petition  

(Criminal) No. 1735 of 2014 whereby the High Court  

disposed of the Habeas Corpus writ petition filed by  

the appellant herein for the production and return  

of the minor daughter by issuing directions.

1

Page 2

3) It is not necessary to set out the facts of the  

case in detail except to state that the dispute which  

revolves around between the parties (wife-appellant  

herein  and  husband-respondent  no.  2  herein)  is  

essentially in relation to the custody of their minor  

daughter-Roshni.  

4) So  far  as  this  appeal  is  concerned,  as  

mentioned above, it arises out of final judgment and  

order dated 07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of  

Delhi  at  New  Delhi  in  a  habeas  corpus  petition  

bearing W.P.(Crl.) No. 1735 of 2014 filed by the wife  

against her husband seeking production and return  

of  her  minor  daughter  and  praying  for  some  

consequential  reliefs  therein.   The High Court,  by  

impugned judgment,  disposed  of  the  writ  petition  

inter  alia directing the Family Court to dispose of  

the main custody case.  

5) This  Court,  during  the  pendency  of  the  

proceedings,  had  passed  some  interim  orders  

regarding temporary custody of the child.

2

Page 3

6) Heard  Mrs.  Nitya  Ramakrishnan,  learned  

counsel for the appellant, Mr. Jagjit Singh, learned  

counsel  for  respondent  No.1  and  Mr.  P.K.  Dey,  

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

7) Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

parties and having interacting with the child, we feel  

that it would be just and proper to direct the Family  

Court, which has seized of the main custody case  

(Guardianship Case No. 115/2014) to dispose of the  

pending  main  case,  i.e.,  Guardianship  Case  No.  

115/2014, on merits preferably within six months  

as  an  outer  limit  strictly  in  accordance  with  law  

keeping in view the paramount interest and welfare  

of  the child  and all  relevant factors necessary for  

deciding the custody of minor child uninfluenced by  

any of our observations.

8) During the pendency of the main custody case,  

the temporary custody of  the child-Roshni  will  be  

with the respondent no. 2 - i.e. husband/father. The  

respondent no. 2 will drop the child on every  

3

Page 4

Saturday by 6.00 pm. at the petitioner’s residence  

and collect the child by 6.00 pm. on the next day  

(Sunday).  

9) We hope, trust and expect from the appellant  

and respondent no. 2 to cooperate with each other  

for the sake of their minor child's welfare and taking  

advantage of temporary custody of the child not to  

influence  her  innocent  mind  by  tutoring  her  and  

create  hatred  against  others  for  their  personal  

interest-a  fact,  which  we  unfortunately  noticed  

while interacting with the child on two occasions.  

Indeed, we feel that such attempt on their part and  

especially, respondent no. 2 may do more harm to  

the child in long run.  

10) In  our  view,  both  parties  being  young  and  

highly educated should realize such things for the  

welfare of their own child and make sincere efforts  

to come to mutual terms so that every one is able to  

live  happily  and  enjoy  family  life.  Such  steps,  if  

taken,  will  always  be  in  the  interest  of  everyone  

4

Page 5

including the child who needs protection, guidance,  

care, love and affection of both mother and father,  

who were responsible to bring her in this world.    

11) We, therefore, direct the Family Court to hold  

regular  sittings  for  reconciliation  during  the  

pendency  of  the  custody  case  and  if  considers  

necessary for the welfare and interest of the child  

pass  any  interim  orders  till  final  disposal  of  the  

custody case.

12) With  these  directions,  the  appeal  stands  

disposed of finally.

13) In the light of the order passed hereinabove in  

the appeal, no orders are required in the contempt  

petition.

                …….…. ……............................J.

[J. CHELAMESWAR]

                               …………..................................J.

[ABHAY  MANOHAR  SAPRE] New Delhi; December 09, 2015.

5