MEENAL BHARGAVA versus NAVEEN SHARMA on 9 May 2018

[2018] 4 S.C.R. 521

MEENAL BHARGAVA

v.

NAVEEN SHARMA

(Civil Appeal No. 1606 of 2018 etc.)

MAY 09, 2018

[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971:

s.12(1) r/w s. 12(3) – Appellant (wife) left company of herhusband (respondent) with her son – Canadian Court grantedcustody of the child to the husband – Wife without complying withthe order of Canadian Court, came to India – Husband filed HabeasCorpus petition in the High Court in India – The parties reachedsettlement on certain terms – Husband thereafter filed contemptpetition seeking execution of consent terms and punishment of wifefor contempt of Court – High Court found the wife guilty of contemptof court awarding punishment of six months civil imprisonment –On appeal, held: High Court was not right in punishing the wifefor contempt without considering the allegations as to whether shefulfilled her obligations under the consent terms – Settlement asregards resumption of matrimonial relations was reached in theproceedings which essentially related to custody of the child –Therefore, focus of the High Court should have been on the custodyof the child and should have restored the Habeas Corpus petitionand decided the same on merit – Order passed in contempt petitionis set aside – Habeas Corpus petition is revived which shall bedecided by High Court on merits.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. When the notice of the contempt petition wasserved upon the appellant, she filed reply thereto stating thatshe had taken requisite steps under the settlement and it is therespondent who failed to get orders dated April 16, 2015 passedby Canadian Court nullified thereby disabling her to go to Americainasmuch as she could be arrested immediately on landing in

521

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AUSA/Canada in view of the aforesaid order. She also alleged thatlist of flats was not sent to her. Moreover, conduct of therespondent, post-settlement, was not good. She had also filedadditional reply dated December 11, 2017 contending that (i)pursuant to High Court orders, she had gone to Delhi hotel tomeet respondent and his mother but she was publicly humiliatedBthere, (ii) she had found that the respondent had been fired byhis employer for taking bribes and he had not been truthful tothe Government also and (iii) respondent had not paid a singlepenny as maintenance. This was followed by application datedDecember 19, 2017 by the appellant seeking recall of order datedCDecember 17, 2015. [Para 15][530-A-C]

2. The High Court has not adverted to the important aspectthat needed attention in such a case, namely, whether it was theappellant who was responsible for not adhering to the terms ofthe consent order and thereby violated the directions issued byDthe High Court in its orders dated May 09, 2017. The approachof the High Court was to insist the appellant to adhere to thesettlement terms even at that stage and on her refusing to do so,it arrived at a finding that she had committed the contempt of thecourt’s order as the aforesaid conduct was found to be abhorrent.It is,thus, the stubborn attitude shown by the appellant duringEthe hearing of the contempt petition which has weighed by theHigh Court. That, was not the correct approach for punishing theappellant for contempt of court. The contempt petition was filedby the respondent alleging that the appellant had not fulfilled herobligations under the consent terms and the directions given byFthe High court in this behalf. It was, thus, necessary for the HighCourt to discuss and consider, in the first instance, as to whetherthese allegations of the respondent were correct. [Para 18][531-D-H]

3. The consent terms on which the parties settled the matterGcontained an important part of agreement, namely, both theparties decided to live together again. This happened in theproceedings which essentially related to the custody of child. Nodoubt, when the parties agreed to resume the matrimonialrelations and decided to live again as husband and wife, theH

problem of custody got automatically solved thereby as it broughtabout an ideal situation where the child could have the companyof his both the parents. However, this did not materialise. Evenwhen a decree of conjugal rights is filed by a competent court oflaw in favour of one of the spouses, such a decree cannot beexecuted and the other spouse who is directed to resume theconjugal relations, cannot be forced to do so. It is a differentmatter that for not obeying such a decree, other consequencefollow including right to the decree holder to seek divorce. Whenthat is the position even in respect of a decree passed bycompetent court of law forcing the appellant to join the companyof the respondent and on her failing to do so punishing her incommitting contempt of the court’s order, that too by awardingmaximum civil imprisonment in law cannot be countenanced. Ina matter like this, the focus of the High Court should have beenon the custody of the child, which was a subject matter of theHabeas Corpus petition. However, as far as that aspect isconcerned, the High Court simply stated that it would be open tothe respondent to execute the order of the Canadian Court datedApril 16, 2015. Here again the High Court has fallen into error.In fact, in a matter like this, the High Court should have restoredthe Habeas Corpus Petition and decided the same on merits.However, when application for this purpose was filed by therespondent, instead of doing so the High Court passed the ordersdated October 05, 2017 giving liberty to the respondent to filethe contempt petition. Therefore, the order of the High courtwhereby the appellant was punished for contempt, is set aside.[Paras 19, 20][532-A-F, G]

4. It would be open to the respondent to press the contemptpetition before the High Court and if he so chooses the HighCourt shall decide the contempt petition by first finding out as towhether the appellant is correct in her submissions that it is therespondent who did not take necessary steps to ensure that theappellant joins the company of the respondents along with thechild in USA. The appeal of the respondent is also partly allowedby setting aside the direction of the High Court permitting therespondent to file the execution petition. Instead with the consentof both the parties, order dated October 05, 2017 passed in AB

C

DE

F

G

H

AMiscellaneous Application filed by respondent in Habeas Corpuspetition is set aside and his Habeas Corpus petition is revivedwhich shall be dealt with by the High Court on merits in order todecide as to whether custody of the child is to be handed over tothe respondent. [Para 20][532-G-H; 533-A-B]

BCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1606of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in D. B. CivilContempt Petition No. 1846 of 2017

C

WITH

Civil Appeal No. 3629 of 2018.

Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Sr. Adv., Amit Pawan, Anuj Prakash,Abhishek Amritanshu, Anand Nandan, Rajat Kapoor, Hassan ZubairDWaris, Akshat Srivastav, Rohit Rajershi, Advs. for the Appellants.Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Upasna Gupta, S. S. Jauhar, Advs. for theRespondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

A. K. SIKRI, J. 1. These are the cross-appeals, filed by bothEthe parties challenging different parts of the orders dated January 9,2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan in D.B. CivilContempt Petition No. 1846 of 2017. The parties are husband and wife.After their marriage in the year 2007, the wife joined her husband in theUnited States of America (USA). Their child, named Pranav, was bornFout of this wedlock in August, 2009 at Baltimore, USA. In 2010, theymigrated to Canada. For certain reasons, the matrimonial relationsbecame strained and the wife viz. Meenal Bhargava (hereinafter referredto as the ‘appellant’), left the company of her husband Naveen Sharma(hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) and on July 26, 2013, wentaway from her husband, taking Pranav with her. Initially, for some time,Gshe stayed in Buffalo, New York and thereafter came to India in August,2013.

2. The respondent filed a case for custody of Pranav in a CanadianCourt. Vide order dated October 29, 2014, the Court granted temporary H

custody of Pranav to the respondent. By that time, appellant had broughtPranav to India i.e. on August 4, 2013. After order dated October 29,2014 granting temporary custody of Pranav was passed in favour of therespondent, the mother of the appellant filed a motion in a Court at Canadastating that the said Court at Canada had no jurisdiction in the matter.This contention was, however, rejected by the Court and, thereafter onApril 2, 2015, another order was passed directing the appellant to returnPranav to its jurisdiction and appear before the Court on April 16, 2015.The appellant did not comply with this order, which led to issuance ofred corner notice by the FBI/Interpol against the appellant.

3. Since the appellant had travelled out of territorial jurisdiction ofthe Canadian Court and had come to India with Pranav, finding no otheralternative, the respondent herein filed a Habeas Corpus Petition in theHigh Court of Judicature at Rajasthan. In the said petition, notice wasissued to the appellant herein. Having regard to the nature of dispute,the High Court deemed it proper to explore the possibility of settlementin the first instance. Thus, by order dated December 17, 2015, the partieswere referred to mediation. This effort bore fruits as the respondentand appellant settled the matter.

4. The appellant agreed to come back to USA and join the companyof the respondent along with Pranav. Consent terms were recorded andon the basis thereof, the High Court disposed of the Habeas CorpusPetition vide order dated December 17, 2015 incorporating those termsof settlement in its order and directing the parties to abide by the same.These consent terms are as under:

“(1) Both the parties will withdraw their respective cases within4 months from today.

(2) Mr. Naveen Sharma will find out 3-4 flats for choice of Smt.Meenal and Smt. Meenal will then go to U.S.A. to select one ofthem. This process should complete within 18 months.

(3) In the meantime Mr. Naveen Sharma will come to India tomeet Mrs. Meenal and Pranav at least for 3 time. SimilarlyMrs. Meenal will go to U.S.A. along with her son under the securitywith condition that Mr. Naveen will arrange all their expensesincluding travelling expenses and will undertake that if both ofthem desire to return India then Mr. Naveen will arrange theirsafe return to India.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A(4) The flat which is going to purchase by Mr. Naveen Sharmashould be in joint name of both party. None of the party willentitle to sale this flat or it’s any part independently. Mr. NaveenSharma will arrange collateral security against loan and in no casethe flat should be taken from ownership and possession of Mrs.Meenal Sharma. In case any mis-happening the flat will remainBin ownership of Mrs. Meenal Sharma.

(5) Mr. Naveen, Mrs. Meenal and Pranav will live jointly at U.S.A.after purchase of flat. None of the family member of both partieswill disturb and interfere in their lives.”

C

5. For certain reasons, the laudable settlement, hoping to achievewin-win situation, did not turn into reality. As per the respondent, it isthe appellant who committed breach of the said settlement and alsoviolated the directions contained in the order of the High Court to complywith these terms. As she failed to adhere to the settlement and did not Dcomply with the directions of the High Court in this behalf, the respondentherein filed Civil Contempt Petition in the High Court seeking executionof the consent terms and punishment to the appellant under the Contemptof Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The appellantalso, thereafter, filed application in the High Court seeking recall of the consent order dated December 17, 2015. The High Court has, byEimpugned judgment dated January 9, 2018, found the appellant to be incontempt and award maximum punishment of six months civilimprisonment under Section 12(1) read with Section 12(3) of the Actwith direction to the appellant to surrender within four weeks. The HighCourt has also dismissed the application preferred by the appellant forFrecall of order dated December 17, 2015. However, it has not acceptedthe request of the respondent to give him the custody of Pranav pursuantto the Canadian Court’s order dated April 16, 2015 and, instead, permittedthe respondent to seek execution of the said order.

6. The appellant has challenged the aforesaid order against theGfindings of the High Court holding her to be in contempt of its order andawarding the said punishment. The respondent feels aggrieved by thatpart of the order whereby the High Court has refused to grant him thecustody of Pranav and showed him the route of execution. This, innutshell, is the scope of two appeals before this Court.

H

7. As noted above, Pranav was born in Baltimore, USA on August22, 2009. He is having US citizenship. Both the parties, after theirmarriage, have resided in America or Canada. They have also becamePermanent Residents of Canada as well as America. From the date ofhis birth in August, 2009, Pranav remained with their parents, initially inAmerica and thereafter in Canada till July 26, 2013, when the appellantwent away with him to Buffalo, New York and thereafter came to Indiaon August 4, 2013. Pranav stayed with his father, along with her mother,for four years and since then he is living with her mother to the exclusionof the respondent. He was 4 years of age when he was brought to Indiaby the appellant and is in India now for more than 4½ years. Anotherpertinent fact which is to be noted is that the respondent has got ordersfrom the Canadian Court giving custody of Pranav to him and has directedthe appellant herein to return the child back to Canada.

8. In the aforesaid background, the respondent had filed petitionfor Habeas Corpus. However, the said petition was not heard on meritsinasmuch as parties were relegated to mediation where they settled thematter leading to disposal of the Habeas Corpus petition vide order datedDecember 17, 2015 on the consent terms which were made part of theorder with specific directions to both the parties to adhere to thoseconditions. We have already noted the consent terms as per which theparties had to withdraw their respective cases against each other within4 months from the date of the order of the High Court. The respondentwas obligated to find out 3-4 flats for choice of the appellant. Afterhaving chosen these flats, he was to show the same to the appellant.The appellant, at that stage, was supposed to go to USA to select one ofthe said flats. On this selection, she was to join the respondent withPranav, thereby achieving again the matrimonial alliance and Pranavhaving benefit of the company of both his parents. This entire processwas to be completed within 18 months. During the aforesaid period of18 months which was given to the respondent to find out flats in USA,the respondent was permitted to come to India, at least three times, tomeet the appellant and Pranav. Likewise, the appellant and Pranavwere also supposed to go to USA under security and for such visits, itwas the responsibility of the respondent to arrange all their expensesincluding travelling expenses. During such visits, they were entitled toremain in USA as per their choice and as and when they desired toreturn to India, the respondent had to arrange their safe return to India.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A9. Three main obligations, as per the consent terms, were foistedupon the respondent, viz.:

(i) To find 3-4 flats in USA to enable the appellant to select one ofthem. The chosen flat was to become abode of the family.

(ii) To withdraw the cases filed against the appellant. This includedBcomplaint filed with Police and also take steps to ensure that warrants/red-corner notice issued by the FBI/Interpol also stands withdrawn. Thiswas necessary for smooth entry of the appellant in USA.

(iii) After the selection of the flat by the appellant, the respondentwas obligated to purchase the said flat in joint names.

C

10. Likewise, the appellant was bound to carry out the followingtasks as per the aforesaid statements:

(i) To withdraw all the cases filed by her against the respondent.

(ii) After earmarking of 3-4 flats by the respondent, to go to USADto select one of them.

(iii) On selecting the flat and purchase thereof by the respondentin joint names of the appellant and respondent, she was to go to USAalong with Pranav and stay there with the respondent.

11. For certain reasons, the parties fell apart and the settlementEterms could not be fructified leading to the unfortunate situation. As perthe respondent, he had played his part by complying with the said termsinasmuch as he withdrew the illinois police complaint, warrants/red-cornernotice issued by FBI/Interpol on February 12, 2016. He also visitedIndia three times i.e. in August, 2016, December, 2016 and August, 2017.FDuring these visits, the respondent had shown to the appellant variousflats selected online by him with request to the appellant to make herchoice. However, on his third visit in August, 2017, the appellant did notallow Pranav to meet the respondent as a result of which police complaintwas filed with the SHO, Ajmer on August 26, 2017. The respondent alsosent air tickets to the appellant on August 31, 2017 for travel on SeptemberG3, 2017 to enable her and Pranav to visit USA. The respondent furtherclaims that he had also planned a trip to Disney World, Florida for Pranavalong with the appellant. According to the respondent, in spite of all theefforts made by the respondent, it is the appellant who backed out andresiled from the settlement as she failed to perform her role.

H

H

12. The appellant, on the other hand, blames the respondent whichled to the aforesaid failure. Her accusation is that after the HabeasCorpus Petition was disposed of vide order dated December 17, 2015,she filed following three petitions on April 12, 2016 seeking to withdrawthe following cases filed by her:

(i) Custody Petition filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.

(ii) Maintenance case filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.

(iii) Divorce case filed by her before the Family Court, Ajmer.

13. It is further claimed by the appellant that even the criminalproceedings launched by her under Section 498-A IPC etc. were quashedby the High Court on a petition filed by the respondent under Section482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) which happenedbecause of her no objection as per the settlement. Pointing the finger atthe respondent, her imputation is that he did not withdraw the custodycase filed by him in the Canadian Court and/or sought vacation/rescindingof order dated April 16, 2015 by which custody of Pranav was orderedin favour of the respondent. She also alleges that the respondent failedto send a list of flats to her within the stipulated 18 months time whichwas mentioned in the consent terms. Thus, according to the appellant, itis the respondent who has not fulfilled his obligations under the settlement.In fact, she even filed miscellaneous application in the petition that wasfiled by the respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and was allowed bythe High Court on April 12, 2017, seeking recall of the said order on theground that it was the respondent who had committed breach of thesettlement. High Court, however, rejected the said application vide orderdated May 9, 2017 on the ground that the said order had been passedafter issuance of notice to the appellant.

14. With this kind of impasse, the respondent filed a miscellaneousapplication in the Habeas Corpus Petition seeking revival thereof on theground that the appellant had breached the consent terms. This applicationwas, however, not accepted by the High Court on the ground that ifthere was any breach or disobedience on the part of the appellant herein,there was an alternative remedy available to the respondent to filecontempt petition. This application was, thus, dismissed as withdrawnby order dated October 5, 2017 with liberty to the respondent to file thecontempt petition. Thereafter, the respondent filed the contempt petitionon November 7, 2017 which has culminated in the impugned judgmentdated January 9, 2018.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A15. We may mention at this stage that when the notice of thecontempt petition was served upon the appellant, she filed reply theretostating that she had taken requisite steps under the settlement and it isthe respondent who failed to get orders dated April 16, 2015 passed byCanadian Court nullified thereby disabling her to go to America inasmuchas she could be arrested immediately on landing in USA/Canada in viewBof the aforesaid order. She also alleged that list of flats was not sent toher. Moreover, conduct of the respondent, post-settlement, was not good.She had also filed additional reply dated December 11, 2017 contending(i) pursuant to High Court orders, she had gone to Delhi hotel to meetrespondent and his mother but she was publicly humiliated there, (ii) sheChad found that the respondent had been fired by his employer IBM fortaking bribes and he had not been truthful to the Government also and(iii) respondent had not paid a single penny as maintenance. This wasfollowed by application dated December 19, 2017 by the appellant seekingrecall of order dated December 17, 2015.

D16. The aforesaid stand of the appellant has been taken note ofwith a specific purpose, namely, it is the contention of Mrs. AnjanaPrakash, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, that theHigh Court has, in the impugned judgment, not even discussed and dealtwith the submissions of the appellant that she had not committed anybreach of the order or consent terms and on the contrary, it is theErespondent who failed to fulfil his obligations thereunder. She submittedthat from the reading of the impugned order, it can be discerned that theHigh Court Bench kept on insisting the appellant to join the company ofthe respondent along with Pranav and on her refusal to do so, the HighCourt has taken the view that appellant has shown strong defiance toFthe orders of the Court. In the process, the High Court has not evencared to examine who was at fault insofar as adherence to the consentorder is concerned. She also submitted that the High Court took intoconsideration another extraneous factor. It has noted in the impugnedjudgment that statement was given in the Court by the father of theappellant that the application for recall of order dated May 9, 2017 passedGin petition filed by the respondent under Section 482 Cr.P.C., was movedby the counsel for the appellant without her instructions. That, however,was found to be false assertion inasmuch as the High Court called forthe record of that case and found that each page of the application wassigned by the appellant and on realising this, it was conceded that lawyerH

was instructed to make such an application. It was contended by thelearned senior counsel that even if this was correct, it has no bearinginsofar as the contempt case is concerned.

17. Mr. Jauhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, onthe other hand, put entire blame upon the appellant who, according tohim, took summersault with intention to commit breach of settlementterms as there was change of heart and she decided not to join thecompany of the husband. He took pains to demonstrate that respondenthad took all the necessary steps in terms of the settlement. He stillwanted the appellant to resume matrimonial alliance for the sake ofsaving the family ties and also to enable Pranav be in the company ofboth the parents.

18. We have duly considered the submissions of counsel for boththe parties. As noted in detail above, both the parties are blaming eachother for the failure of settlement terms. In this backdrop, we havegone through the impugned order passed by the High Court. In theentire judgment, the High Court has not adverted to the important aspectthat needed attention in such a case, namely, whether it was the appellantwho was responsible for not adhering to the terms of the consent orderand thereby violated the directions issued by the High Court in in itsorders dated May 09, 2017. After all, the respondent had filed thecontempt petition attributing breach of the directions on the part of theappellant. In reply, the appellant had taken up the stand that she was notresponsible for the happenings and squarely blamed the respondenttherefor. The High Court has not discussed these aspects. On thecontrary, the approach of the High Court was to insist the appellant toadhere to the settlement terms even at that stage and on her refusing todo so it arrived at a finding that she had committed the contempt of thecourt’s order as the aforesaid conduct was found to be abhorrent. It is,thus, the stubborn attitude shown by the appellant during the hearing ofthe contempt petition which has weighed by the High Court. That,according to us, was not the correct approach for punishing the appellantfor contempt of court. The contempt petition was filed by the respondentalleging that the appellant had not fulfilled her obligations under theconsent terms and the directions given by the High court in this behalf.It was, thus, necessary for the High Court to discuss and consider, in thefirst instance, as to whether these allegations of the respondent werecorrect.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

A19. There is another way of looking into the matter. The consentterms on which the parties settled the matter contained an importantpart of agreement, namely, both the parties decided to live together again.This happened in the proceedings which essentially related to the custodyof child. No doubt, when the parties agreed to resume the matrimonialrelations and decided to live again as husband and wife, the problem ofBcustody of Pranav got automatically solved thereby as it brought aboutan ideal situation where Pranav could have the company of his both theparents. Unfortunately, this did not materialise. In a case like this whetherthe High Court could force the appellant to join the company of therespondent and live with him, if he had decided for certain reasons not toCdo so? Even when a decree of conjugal rights is filed by a competentcourt of law in favour of one of the spouses, such a decree cannot beexecuted and the other spouse who is directed to resume the conjugalrelations, cannot be forced to do so. It is a different matter that for notobeying such a decree, other consequence follow including right to thedecree holder to seek divorce. When that is the position even in respectDof a decree passed by competent court of law forcing the appellant tojoin the company of the respondent and on her failing to do so punishingher in committing contempt of the court’s order, that too by awardingmaximum civil imprisonment in law cannot be countenanced. In a matterlike this, the focus of the High Court should have been on the custody ofEthe child, which was a subject matter of the Habeas Corpus petition.However, as far as that aspect is concerned, the High Court simplystated that it would be open to the respondent to execute the order of theCanadian Court dated April 16, 2015. Here again the High Court hasfallen into error. In fact, in a matter like this, the High Court should haverestored the Habeas Corpus Petition and decided the same on merits.FHowever, when application for this purpose was filed by the respondent,instead of doing so the High Court passed the orders dated October 05,2017 giving liberty to the respondent to file the contempt petition.

20. Having regard to our aforesaid discussion, we allow the appealfiled by the appellant and set aside the order of the High court wherebyGthe appellant is punished for contempt. It would be open to the respondentto press the contempt petition before the High Court and if he so chosesthe High Court shall decide the contempt petition in the light of theaforesaid observations made by this Court, namely, to first find out as towhether the appellant is correct in her submissions that it is the respondentH

who did not take necessary steps to ensure that the appellant joins thecompany of the respondents along with Pranav in USA. We also allowthe appeal of the respondent partly by setting aside the direction of theHigh Court permitting the respondent to file the execution petition. Insteadwith the consent of both the parties, order dated October 05, 2017 passedin Miscellaneous Application filed by respondent in Habeas Corpuspetition is set aside and her Habeas Corpus petition is revived whichshall be dealt with by the High Court on merits in order to decide as towhether custody of Pranav is to be handed over to the respondent. Beforeus, both the parties have advanced arguments on this aspect whereasthe appellant submitted that the welfare of Pranav lies in continuing hiscustody with his mother. The respondent had made a fervent plea toclaim the custody on the basis of the order of the Canadian Court.However, we are deliberately not dealing with this aspect as this aspectis the subject matter of Habeas Corpus Petition pending in the HighCourt and it is the High Court which has to deal with and decide thisquestion, in the first instance.

21. Both the aforesaid appeals are allowed on the aforesaid terms,without any orders as to costs.

22. Before we part with, we are constrained to make fewcomments about the conduct of the parties who are not fullyacknowledging the truth and reality of the situation. It is either theappellant or the respondent or may be, to some extent, both of them,who are to be blamed for the egoist approach. No doubt, on an earlieroccasion, some differences arose between them which led to strainedrelations and the appellant even came back to India. Legal battles of allkinds started with both the parties filing multiple proceedings againsteach other. In these dark clouds enveloping the relationship betweenthe parties, a silver lining emerged in the form of mediation. As both theparties acted with wisdom and maturity, mediation exercise wassuccessful. Both the parties not only buried their acrimony against eachother but decided to have a new beginning. The magic of mediationworked at that moment. The consent terms which were recorded in thesettlement arrived at during mediation proceedings brought about theresolution which could truly be levelled as ‘win-win’ situation. The accordwas aimed at reuniting the two spouses with the aim of bringing happinessin the matrimonial relationship. More importantly, paramount interest of AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

APranav as a child was acknowledged by the parties as any child,particularly at this age, needs the company of both the parents for him/her to bloom and for ideal bringing up. In fact, as is clear from theevents noted above, both the parties even took initial steps to make thissettlement a success. However, before it could be seen as ‘happy ending’and parties could reach that end of the road where they could find theirBfinal destination as envisaged in the settlement, they encountered a roadblock. Whether it happened due to the fault of the appellant or that ofrespondent, we are not commenting about the same. Unfortunate partis that instead of acknowledging the truth, parties are grumblingcontinuously and complaining against each other. This accusation,Ccastigation, chargeability and dilation, depicting deviation from rectitudeis a mindless exercise and, in the process, true welfare of Pranav issought to be sacrificed. We are compelled to express these sentimentsbecause of the reason that things have still not gone beyond repair. Hadthe parties shown positive and cooperative attitude (which, we are sure,they had demonstrated during mediation talks) they could still achieveDan amiable resolution, inasmuch as it is even now possible to work outthe terms of the compromise that was entered into between them. Infact, the respondent had expressed his willingness to go an extra-mile tosave the settlement and the matrimonial home. However, the appellantstood firm in her attitude as she kept on saying that she could no longerErepose confidence and trust in the respondent. She has a grudge thatrespondent lured her into the settlement with selfish motive to take awaythe custody of Pranav with no love towards her and his moves lack bonafides. The respondent, on the other hand, maintained the position thatappellant was resorting to falsehood because of her selfish motives whichwere kept higher in priority, even at the cost of family life. However, weFmay re-emphasise that all is not lost and situation can still be broughtunder control if there is a dispassionate and objective thinking by boththe parties, keeping aside their ego. Life has problems. Parties have tounderstand those problems and to reflect on the reasons why theseproblems have arisen leading to such kind of disputes. Both the partiesGhave also to reflect on the future and to make up their mind on that basisas to whether it would be in their interest, as well as in the interest ofPranav to bury the hatched and have a new beginning. We say nomore.

Kalpana K. TripathyH

Appeals allowed.