Delhi High Court - Orders
Vaidehi Jagannathan Kothimangalam vs L. Badri Narayanan on 27 July, 2021
Author: Rekha Palli
Bench: Rekha Palli
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 483/2021
VAIDEHI JAGANNATHAN KOTHIMANGALAM ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Adv.
versus
L. BADRI NARAYANAN ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Asmita Narula, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
ORDER
% 27.07.2021 CM APPL. 22424/2021 (Exemptions)
1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
CM(M) 483/2021 & CM APPL. 22423/2021 (stay)
3. The petitioner herein seeks to assail the order dated 24.07.2021 passed by the learned Family Court on an application filed by her husband/the respondent seeking 7-hour long custody of the children on their birthdays.
4. The parties are engaged in a custody dispute in respect of their two minor children, a daughter aged 10 years and a son aged 7 years, since November 2020. It is an admitted position that since 14.11.2020, the minor daughter is residing with the petitioner/mother, while the minor son, who is stated to be on the autistic spectrum, is residing with the respondent/father. The parties have filed several applications before the learned Family Court, Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:28.07.2021 15:53:06 seeking inter alia custody or varying interim reliefs in respect of the children, the details whereof are not relevant for the purpose of the present petition. What is important is that, while these applications for custody of the children filed by both the parties were yet to be heard by the learned Family Court, the respondent Husband preferred an application seeking permission to have custody of the minor children for 7 hours on their birthdays falling on 28.07.2021 and 26.09.2021. It is on this application that the learned Family Court passed the impugned order, permitting the respondent/father visitation rights for five hours from 12 P.M. to 5 P.M. to celebrate the birthday of the minor daughter on 28.07.2021, and that of the minor son on 26.09.2021. The impugned order further records that the respondent shall pick up the minor daughter from the petitioner's residence and drop her back there, at the prescribed time.
5. Assailing the decision of the learned Family Court, Mr. Mendiratta, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that this interim direction is wholly unwarranted and, for that matter, the application itself moved by the respondent did not deserve to be considered by the Court. He submits that it is of the utmost importance that the minor children, siblings who have been cruelly separated from each other for the last eight months, are allowed to reside together at the earliest, in accordance with a custody arrangement finalised in Court. He submits that it is for this reason that the Family Court ought to have, instead, decided to expeditiously hear and dispose of the main applications for custody that were preferred by both the sides. He further submits that what is essential for the wellbeing of the minor children is that their birthdays are celebrated in the presence of all family members and that, to that end, the petitioner has made several offers Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:28.07.2021 15:53:06 to the respondent and his family to join her at her residence for the birthday celebration of the minor daughter, but to no avail.
6. After some arguments, Mr. Mendiratta submits that any direction requiring the petitioner to hand over custody of the minor daughter to the respondent for five hours on her birthday on 28.07.2021 should be reciprocal, and that the petitioner also ought to be allowed custody of her son for five hours on his birthday on 26.09.2021. He submits that since, essentially, the purpose of the order is to permit the respondent to spend quality time with his daughter on her birthday, the same opportunity ought to be given to the petitioner as well in respect of her minor son, so that both children can be reunited with their mother and celebrate the son's birthday together.
7. Ms. Luthra, learned senior counsel for the respondent has no objection to this request. She, however, submits that the minor son, being on the autism spectrum, has certain special needs and, if the petitioner is permitted to have custody of him for five hours on his birthday, it is essential that he is allowed to be escorted by his maid who is currently taking care of him with the respondent.
8. Mr. Mendiratta has no objection to the maid accompanying the minor son on 26.09.2021, but requests that she maintain some distance from him to enable the petitioner and her daughter to spend quality time with him. He submits that a separate room will be made available for the maid with all requisite facilities, and that it is only in case the need arises that the maid be called inside to cater to the minor son.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. Needless to say, this order only makes a few further additions to the Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:28.07.2021 15:53:06 existing interim custody arrangement for 26.09.2021. This does not preclude the learned Family Court from expeditiously deciding the custody petitions filed by the parties, that are currently pending before it.
10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
REKHA PALLI, J JULY 27, 2021 acm Signature Not Verified Signed By:GARIMA MADAN Location: Signing Date:28.07.2021 15:53:06