PERRY KANSAGRA versus SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

PERRY KANSAGRA versus SMRITI MADAN KANSAGRA

Reports of the counsellor touching on the home environment, personalities, and relationship with the child are admissible for the court’s determination of custody and guardianship; normal confidentiality principles are subject to statutory exception in such matters, for the best interest of the child. The High Court erred in treating the review as a proper remedy and setting aside its previous judgment based on confidentiality; the proper remedy was appeal, not review.

Parties
Appellant: Perry Kansagra; Respondent: Smriti Madan Kansagra
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Allowing Review and Setting Aside Earlier Custody/guardianship Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Child Custody, Guardianship, Mediation Confidentiality, Parens Patriae Jurisdiction, Family Courts Act Interpretation
Family Law Child Custody Guardianship Mediation Confidentiality Parens Patriae Jurisdiction Family Courts Act Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Perry Kansagra

Appellant

Smriti Madan Kansagra

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Order Allowing Review and Setting Aside Earlier Custody/guardianship Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mediator and counsellor reports in custody/guardianship mediation are confidential and inadmissible in court proceedings
  2. 2 Scope of review jurisdiction exercised by High Court in custody matters

Ratio Decidendi

Reports of the counsellor touching on the home environment, personalities, and relationship with the child are admissible for the court’s determination of custody and guardianship; normal confidentiality principles are subject to statutory exception in such matters, for the best interest of the child. The High Court erred in treating the review as a proper remedy and setting aside its previous judgment based on confidentiality; the proper remedy was appeal, not review.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed by High Court set aside
  • Earlier judgment dated 17.02.2017 passed by High Court of Delhi restored