SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Prasenjit Bhattacharyya vs Smt. Sathi Bhattacharyya on 9 September, 2019


Court No.16
Sl. No. 7

F.M.A.T. 868 of 2019
CAN 8895 of 2019

Prasenjit Bhattacharyya
Smt. Sathi Bhattacharyya

Mr. Haradhan Banerjee,
Mr. Suresh Ch. Manna.
….for the Appellant.

Mr. Gopal Ch. Ghosh,
Mr. Arnab Roy.
….for the Respondent.

The appeal is directed against an order dated August 6, 2019, by which the

appellant-father’s application for the custody of the 13-year-old son has been

rejected and the respondent’s prayer in counter-claim for the custody of the child

has been allowed.

Prima facie, the order impugned appears to have dealt with all aspects of the

matter upon taking relevant considerations into account. The court below found

that the appellant’s conduct in removing the child from the Bhatpara residence

could not be condoned and the appellant could not be permitted to retain the

custody of the child after having taken away the child by subterfuge. The judgment

impugned records that it was the admitted position that the appellant had taken

away the son some time in March, 2015 upon representing both to the son and the

respondent herein that the son would be taken to the zoo. However, the appellant

did not return with the son to the residence and was not even available at the

appellant’s regular office on subsequent days when the respondent along with

appellant’s father visited the office in search of the appellant. It is of considerable

significance that the respondent and the appellant’s father continue to reside in the

original home in Bhatpara while the appellant has shifted out of such place and,

upon a false pretext, obtained the custody of the child. It is such custody, deviously

procured, that the appellant wanted to be confirmed by way of the proceedings

under Section 10 of the Guardian and SectionWards Act, 1890.

When this appeal was received on September 5, 2019, this Court was not

inclined to stay the operation of the order impugned and, indeed, it was observed

that the handing over of the custody should take place in accordance with the order

impugned whereupon the propriety of the order impugned could be considered

thereafter. However, Advocate for the appellant insisted that the order impugned

was incurably bad since not only had the appellant’s prayer been declined but

custody had been directed to be made over to the mother when there was no

counter-claim by the mother. It is on such ground that the order impugned was

stayed by this Court’s order of September 5, 2019, as would be evident on the plain

reading of this Court’s relevant order.

It is submitted on behalf of the mother of the child that a counter-claim was

filed and copies of such counter-claim have been made over to the Court. It appears

that a written objection to the counter-claim was also filed by the appellant.

Since the boy is 13 years old at the moment and it is evident from the order

impugned that he has to remain in school for long hours after school is over since

the appellant collects the boy from the school after the close of the appellant’s office

hours, it is more desirable that the boy stays with the mother and the paternal

grand-father at the original Bhatpara home.

The boy must be handed over to the mother by the appellant herein by

September 11, 2019.

Let this matter appear on September 13, 2019. The respondent-mother will

make immediate arrangements to ensure that the minor is admitted in an

appropriate school. The respondent may cite this order before any appropriate

school authority for the purpose of facilitating the boy’s admission.

Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available

to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

( Sanjib Banerjee, J.)

(Suvra Ghosh, J.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation