MRS RITIKA SHARAN versus MR SUJOY GHOSH

MRS RITIKA SHARAN versus MR SUJOY GHOSH

Because the child had been in the care and custody of the mother since 2016, the child expressed a clear desire to reside with the mother in Singapore, there was insufficient material to show custody had passed to the maternal grandparents or that the father could satisfactorily care for the child alone, and the child’s welfare (including educational continuity) would be best served by permitting relocation while protecting the father’s access rights, the Court exercised Article 142 to set aside the High Court order and permit the appellant to take the child to Singapore subject to specified safeguards (passport handover, undertakings, access and visitation directions).

Parties
Appellant: MRS RITIKA SHARAN; Respondent: MR SUJOY GHOSH
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Karnataka (challenge to Family Court Orders Concerning Custody and Passport)
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 11 July 2019 set aside
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Visitation and Access, Guardianship, Relocation of Child, Jurisdiction Under Article 142, Domestic Violence, Passport and Travel
Matrimonial Law Family Law Constitutional Law Child Custody Visitation and Access Guardianship Relocation of Child Jurisdiction Under Article 142 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MRS RITIKA SHARAN

Appellant

MR SUJOY GHOSH

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From the High Court of Karnataka (challenge to Family Court Orders Concerning Custody and Passport)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant may take the minor child to Singapore where she is employed and resides
  2. 2 Whether custody of the child had transferred to the maternal grandparents by reason of their assistance
  3. 3 Whether the Family Court could restrain the appellant from taking the child out of Bengaluru and whether that order was subject to challenge

Ratio Decidendi

Because the child had been in the care and custody of the mother since 2016, the child expressed a clear desire to reside with the mother in Singapore, there was insufficient material to show custody had passed to the maternal grandparents or that the father could satisfactorily care for the child alone, and the child’s welfare (including educational continuity) would be best served by permitting relocation while protecting the father’s access rights, the Court exercised Article 142 to set aside the High Court order and permit the appellant to take the child to Singapore subject to specified safeguards (passport handover, undertakings, access and visitation directions).

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 11 July 2019 set aside

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 11 July 2019 is set aside
  • The appellant is permitted to take the child, Sattik, with her to Singapore where she is employed and resides