Partly allowed

Anuradha Kashyap v. Dr Sushil Kumar

Delhi HC16 Feb 2024MAT.APP.(F.C.)/57/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court varied the Family Court's order regarding child custody interaction. The court shifted the interaction venue from the Court Complex to a clinical psychologist's clinic for supervised sessions to address the child's trauma while ensuring the father's access.

What did the court decide?

Appel invoked; High Court varied Family Court order to allow supervised interaction at a psychologist's clinic; appeal disposed of.

Anuradha Kashyap Vs Dr Sushil Kumar — Child Custody and Guardianship | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~26.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2024 & CM APP. 9410/2024, CM APP. 9411/2024, CM APP. 9408/2024, CM APP. 9409/2024

¶4

ANURADHA KASHYAP ..... Appellant

¶5

Through: Ms Preeti Singh, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

DR SUSHIL KUMAR ..... Respondent Through: Mr Raj Kumar and Mr Imran Khan, Advocates

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶10

O R D E R % 16.02.2024

¶11

[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]

¶12

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2024 & CM APP. 9410/2024 [ Application filed on behalf of the appellant seeking interim relief]

¶13

Issue notice.

¶14

Mr Raj Kumar accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/ husband.

¶15

With the consent of the counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal at this stage itself.

¶16

The appellant/ wife, via the instant appeal, seeks to assail the orders dated 16.12.2023 and 03.02.2024 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-02, District East, Karkadooma Courts, Delhi.

¶17

We may state, at the outset, that the record indicates that the

¶18

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2024 Page 1 of 3

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:25:23

¶21

appellant/wife has, somehow, one way or the other avoided adherence with the directions issued by the Family Court with regard to the production of the child so that interaction could take place between him and the respondent/husband.

¶22

5.1 It is not in dispute that the direction issued in that behalf through orders dated 20.11.2023, 29.11.2023 and 22.01.2024 were not complied with by the appellant/wife. The appellant/wife, instead of complying with the direction, filed a review application against orders dated 20.11.2023 and 29.11.2023, which was dismissed via order dated 16.12.2023.

¶23

It is against this backdrop that the order dated 03.02.2024 came to be passed, when the Court directed the appellant/wife to bring the child for interaction to the Children’s Room located in the Court Complex. The direction issued by the Family Court requires the appellant/ wife to bring the child to the Children’s Room in the Court Complex on every first and third Saturday for interaction with the respondent/ husband between 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM.

¶24

Ms Preeti Singh, counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/ wife says that the child is traumatized and does not wish to interact with the respondent/ husband.

¶25

It is Ms Singh’s assertion that the child who is about 5 years old has witnessed domestic violence and therefore, resists interaction with the respondent/ husband.

¶26

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/ husband denies the submission made by Ms Singh concerning domestic violence.

¶27

While we are not particularly happy with the approach adopted by the MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2024 Page 2 of 3

¶28

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/12/2024 at 15:25:23

¶29

appellant/wife, in the best interest of the child, we propose to vary the order passed by the learned Family Court to the extent given hereinafter, albeit , with the consent of the parties:

¶30

i. The appellant/wife will produce the child for interaction with the respondent/husband at the clinic of Ms Rashi Juneja, Clinical Psychologist [Mob. No. 9873363853], located at E-82, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar – IV, New Delhi, 110024, on 02.03.2024 and 16.03.2024.

¶31

ii. The interaction with the respondent/husband will be supervised by Ms Juneja in the manner deemed fit.

¶32

iii. Counsel for the parties will touch base with the office of Ms Juneja with regard to the time when the child is to be produced. Ms Juneja will ensure that the respondent/husband is able to interact with the child for at least one (1) hour on each visit.

¶33

iv. Ms Juneja is requested to submit a report concerning the interaction to the concerned Family Court. Endeavour will be made to submit the report on or before 23.03.2024.

¶34

v. The appellant/wife will bear the burden of Ms Juneja’s fee.

¶35

The Registry of this Court will ensure that the report is collected from the Ms Juneja and is filed in the proceedings pending before the concerned Family Court.

¶36

The appeal and the pending applications shall stand disposed of.

¶37

Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

¶38

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J AMIT BANSAL, J

¶39

FEBRUARY 16, 2024/ rt

¶40

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

¶41

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 57/2024

¶42

Page 3 of 3

¶43

Anuradha Kashyap v. Dr Sushil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anuradha Kashyap v. Dr Sushil Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokesh Prabhakar Vs Archana Prabhakar

Parvinder Kaur Vs Vipan Kumar

Shankar Mallick Vs Sarita Kumari

Debarati Bhunia Chakraborty Vs Suman Sankar Bhunia

Pushpa Vs Yogender Kumar Dabas

Santosh Vs Mohinder Singh Malik

Kamlesh Vs Akhilesh Kumar

Sunita Vs Om Prakash

Lokesh Prabhakar Vs Archana Prabhakar

Mahua Bindal Vs Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University & Ors.

Ircon International Ltd. Vs M/S Pcl-Brahmaputra Consortium Ltd. (Jv).

Sourav Narula Vs Naveen Kumar & Anr.

Mr. Kishan Narang & Anr. Vs M/S Soni Infratech Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Sameer Madan Vs Vandana Madan