Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. She would further rely upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Savitha Seetharam vs. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam reported in 2020 SCC Online Kar 2747, to contend that the Court should endeavour to make such interim arrangements at interlocutory stage, which in a manner, permits shared parenting between the parties. She would submit that such shared parenting will contribute to the mental, physical, emotional, psychological development of the child. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S.Anand @ Akash vs. Vanitha Vijayakumar & Anr., reported in 2011 (2) CTC 736, she would submit that it is the duty of the Court to draw a parenting schedule, when it finds that the parents have not reached to an understanding with regard to a such schedule. She would draw attention of this Court to the reliance placed by the Karnataka High Court and this Court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:46:47 pm ) on the United Nations Conventions on Rights of the Child. She would further contend that the shared parenting would be both child's centric and parents centric. She would vehemently contend that in a Matrimonial litigation, the child is being used as a pawn by both the parents either with custody or without custody. In the case of a custodial parent, the child is used as pawn to force the non-custodial parent for terms with right of custody. In the claim of a non-custodial parents, he threatens the custodial parent with the claim for guardianship and custody to force the custodial parent to give up rights. If a shared parenting plan is envisaged, it may reduce litigation for custody. She had also placed on record, the guidelines and parenting plan envisaged by child rights foundation in an NGO. She would submit that the said plan had been considered by various High Courts and have indicated adoption of such guidelines while dealing with child custody cases by itself and its subordinate Courts. She would persuade this court to frame such guidelines also to be adopted in future child custody cases pending decision of guardianship. She would pray this Court to exercise the powers by giving co-parenting/shared parenting in this case by adopting the said guidelines.

22. Countering her arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:46:47 pm ) respondent would vehemently contend that the applications in the present case cannot be said to be maintainable and the same would have to be rejected on the basic principle of forum conveniens. He would submit that the applicant while seeking interim custody before the Family Court in I.A.No.1 of 2022, had indicated various reasons as to why he seeks interim custody, such reasons were all negatived and the applicant was granted only visitation right over the child. Now, he had filed these various applications on the very same reason and has sought for interim custody, but he has chosen to dissect the reasons in filing individual applications for custody. Therefore, he would submit that what the applicant has attempted to is nothing but forum shopping as he had earlier failed in his attempt before other Court, where he has sought for custody of the child. Therefore, any application for custody on the very same reasons would be hit by principles of resjudicata. He would submit that only under changed circumstances any further application before an other forum would be maintainable. In support of his contentions in opposing the claim on the ground of forum conveniens, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd., Vs Union of India and Another reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 , Union of India and Others Vs Cipla Limited and another reported in (2017) 5 SCC 262 and State https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:46:47 pm ) of Rajasthan Vs Union of India and Others reported in (2018) 12 SCC 83. Hence, he would submit that this Court need not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, which it is to exercise in case of custody of a child between the waring parents. He would further rely upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Radhika Konel Parekh Vs Konel Parekh reported in 1993 (1) LW 159, to contend that any order passed by a Family Court in child custody cases would operate as a resjudicata in a same issue before any other Court including this Court. In the present case, he would submit that the issue of interim custody has already been decided by the Family Court in a petition filed under Section 41 of the Divorce Act which had attained finality in a proceeding in CRP.No.3805 of 2024 before this Court. Hence, the applicant ought not to be permitted to re-agitate the very same issue on the very same grounds before this Court. He would further submit that the issues with regard to co-parenting and shared parenting can be decided in an appropriate case and not in this case, as the respondent opposes the application filed by the applicant solely on the grounds of resjudicata. He would submit that in the present case, the issue had been decided by a Competent Court under the provisions of the Divorce Act and the applicant is attempting to reopen the same before another forum, which has also a jurisdiction to deal with the issue https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/07/2025 03:46:47 pm ) and therefore, the same is hit by the principles of forum conveniens and he prays this Court to reject the application.