Delhi District Court
Asj03 (East) Karkardooma Courts vs Priti Singhal on 5 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ
ASJ03 (EAST) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CA No. 09/12
Amit Singhal
S/o Late Sh. U.K. Singhal
R/o 1/5262,Gali No.10
Ist Floor, Balbir Nagar,
Opposite Bhatia Shop, Delhi
.............Appellant
Versus
Priti Singhal
W/o Sh.Amit Singhal
R/o 353, R.S.Block
Mini Ram Mandir Road
Gali No7, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi32
............ Respondent
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose the appeal filed by the appellant challenging the order of Ld. Court dated 30/06/12 and 13/07/12.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by the respondent against the appellant u/s 12 of the Protection of Domestic Violence Act (DV Act). During the pendency of the case the respondent moved an application Crl. (A) No. 09/12 Page 1 of 4 Amit Singhal Vs. Priti Singhal seeking custody of minor children and Ld. Trial Court passed an interim order directing the appellant to drop the minor children to the house of the petitioner on the weekends. The respondent alleged that this order was not complied with by the appellant and filed an application u/s 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the contempt of Court Act. During the hearing of this application counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant was ready to hand over the custody of both the minor children to the respondent within 10 days. The Court recorded the statement of the appellant and in view of the statement the custody of the children was given to the respondent, who is the mother.
3. The appellant thereafter challenged this order and stated that he had given the statement under emotional blackmail of the respondent and that he intends to withdraw his statement given on 30/06/12. This application was dismissed by Ld. Trial Court observing that the respondent had given a statement on oath and if he was allowed to withdraw the statement, there would be no end to the litigation.
4. The appellant has challenged this order by way of present appeal u/s 29 of DV Act. The ground of challenge is that the Crl. (A) No. 09/12 Page 2 of 4 Amit Singhal Vs. Priti Singhal Trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in handing over the permanent custody of the children to the respondent. The Trial Court was competent only to grant temporary custody as per section 21 of DV Act and as per the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mamta @ Anju Vs. Ashok Jagannath Bharuka (2005) 12 SCC 452 and Savita Bhanot Vs. Lt. Cl. V.D. Bhanot 168 (2010) DLT 68.
5. Ld. Counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that Ld. Trial Court did not pass any order of permanent custody, it had merely given way to the Will of the appellant , which he conveyed by way of the statement given before the Court. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in I (2005) SLT 355 Mohd.Shamim & Ors. Vs. Nahid Begum and 184 (2011) DLT 18 Dalbir Singh Vs. State and VII (2004) SLT 307. In all these judgments the Hon'ble Courts have held that : the parties giving statements before the Trial Court cannot be allowed to back out at a later stage and have held that conducts of such parties should be deprecated.
6. Arguments heard. Record Perused.
7. It is admitted that the appellant gave statement in the Crl. (A) No. 09/12 Page 3 of 4 Amit Singhal Vs. Priti Singhal Court and stated that he was ready to hand over the custody of the children, voluntarily without any pressure or force. Ld. Trial Court passed an order in view of the submission of the Counsel and the statement of the appellant and thus the custody of the children came to be handed over to the respondent. The Court in passing this order did not say anything on the merit of the case. It did not say that the respondent was entitled for the custody of children u/s 21 of the DV Act. It did not say that the custody of the children be handed over to the respondent permanently. It did not even say anything on the merits of the application filed by the respondent and section 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the contempt of Court Act. There is as such no error or violation of any law in the order under challenge.
8. Appeal is dismissed. Trial court record be sent back alongwith a copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 05/12/12 (ANURADHA SHUKLA BHARDWAJ) ASJ03, (EAST) KKD COURTS/DELHI Crl. (A) No. 09/12 Page 4 of 4 Amit Singhal Vs. Priti Singhal