Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE 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  allowed the appeals and remanded the matters to the Family  Court with a direction that the arrangement as to the custody  

1

Page 2

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

Page 3

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 1st 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

Page 4

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