Saturday, 6 January 2018

Courts Shouldn’t Assume The Role Of ‘Super Guardian’: Supreme Court

Courts Shouldn’t Assume The Role Of ‘Super Guardian’: Supreme Court

She conveyed her choice in person as the supreme court, in its earlier order, had asked her to be present in person.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud interacted with the 18- year-old girl in a packed courtroom during which she said that she has become a major and has been pursuing studies in Kuwait and wanted to live with her father.
She conveyed her choice in person as the supreme court, in its earlier order, had asked her to be present in person.
Trashing the plea of the Kerala-based mother, who was seeking her custody, the court said that the daughter of the couple “without any hesitation, clearly stated that she intends to go back to Kuwait to pursue her career”.
“The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation,” said the bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud.
“It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice. The courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae,” said the order pronounced by the supreme court Chief Justice Misra.
The court did not accept the contention of the lawyer appearing for the mother that the woman’s “opinion was not an informed one as she has been pressurised by the father”.
“In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that as a major, she is entitled to exercise her choice and freedom and the court cannot get into the aspect whether she has been forced by the father or not,” the court said.
“There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her father in Kuwait, but we are not concerned with her reasons. What she has stated before the court, that alone matters and that is the heart of the reasoning for this court, which keeps all controversies at bay,” the bench said.
“It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual’s life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his choice.
The bench was hearing the plea of the Kerala-based woman seeking contempt action against her Kuwait-based estranged husband for not obeying the orders of the apex court in the custody matter of their son and daughter.
 “As far as the son is concerned, he is still a minor. The counsel for the respondent-husband submits that as per the order…the petitioner-mother will be entitled to have interim custody during his summer vacation.
“However, if during the summer vacation, the son is undergoing any essential summer courses, that period will be excluded (not exceeding one month),” the bench said.
Disposing of the case, the court said that the father shall pay a sum of Rs 50,000 to the mother on every visit of their son.
Source: NDTV

0 comments:

Post a Comment