ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. on 29 July 2022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 4 S.C.R.

ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA

A

v.

STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 4987 of 2022)

B

JULY 29, 2022

[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Child and Family welfare – Custody of minor child – Appellant(Husband) and respondent no.3 (Wife) shifted to US from Indiaand presently are holders of Permanent US Resident Cards – TheirCchild was born in USA in the year 2011 and till 2020 he was livingthere – Conflicts and confrontation occurred in connubialrelationship – The appellant came to India on 27.02.2020 in Indiato attend his ailing mother – On 03.03.2020, respondent no.3 cameto India and brought the child with herself, without the consent ofDthe appellant – Upon reaching back to USA, appellant initiatedseveral legal proceedings in the USA for the custody of the minorchild – In India, appellant filed the writ petition before the HighCourt for the custody of the child, so that child can be taken to theUSA where he was born – High Court after interacting with thechild and considering other relevant consideration, concluded thatEthe child feels comfortable and secured in the custody of his motherand thereafter rejected the writ petition of the appellant – Hence,the appellant approached the Supreme Court against the judgmentof High Court – Held: There is difference between ‘the wish/desireof the child’ which can be ascertained through interaction and ‘theFbest interest of the child’ which is a matter to be decided by theCourt taking into account all the relevant circumstances – In casesof custody of child the welfare of the child should be of paramountinterest – In the instant case, child is a naturalised US citizen thushe will have better avenues and prospects in his native country –Further, he was living and studying there for nearly a decade andGconsidering entire facts and circumstances and the environment inwhich the child had born, his return to US would be in his bestinterest – High Court have not considered the above factors –Custody of the child given to appellant – Judgement of High Courtwas set aside – Directions issued regarding the smooth return ofHchild to USA.

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

HELD:1. In a matter involving the question of custody of achild it has to be borne in mind that the question ‘what is thewish/desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question‘what would be in the best interest of the child’. Certainly, thewish/desire of the child can be ascertained through interactionbut then, the question as to ‘what would be in the best interest ofthe child’ is a matter to be decided by the court taking into accountall the relevant circumstances. [Para 8][790-G-H; 791-A]

2. To answer the question of jurisdiction, in Ravi Chandran’scase, this Court took note of the actual role of the High Courts inthe matter of examination of cases involving claim of custody of aminor based on the principle of parens patriae jurisdictionconsidering the fact that it is the minor who is within thejurisdiction of the court. Based on such consideration it was heldthat even while considering Habeas Corpus writ petition qua aminor, in a given case, the High Courts may direct for return ofthe child or decline to change the custody of the child taking intoaccount the attending facts and circumstances as also the settledlegal position. [Paras 9 and 10][792-A-B]

3. The child in question is a boy, now around 11 years and anaturalised US citizen with an American passport and his parentsviz., the appellant and respondent No.3 are holders of PermanentUS Resident Cards. These aspects were not given due attention.Merely because he was brought to India by the mother on03.03.2020 and got him admitted in a school and that he is nowfeeling comfortable with schooling and stay in Bengaluru couldnot have been taken as factors for considering the welfare of theboy aged 11 years born and lived nearly for a decade in USA.Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances and theenvironment in which the child had born and was brought up forabout a decade coupled with the fact that he is a naturalisedAmerican citizen, his return to America would be in his bestinterest. In this case it is also to be noted that on two occasionsAmerican courts ordered to return the child to USA. True thatthe first order to that effect was vacated at the instance of A

B

CD

E

FG

Arespondent No.3. However, taking into account all aspects, thiscourt was of the view that it was not a fit case where courts inIndia should refuse to acknowledge the orders of the US Courtsdirecting return of the minor child to the appellant keeping inview the best interests of the child. In this court’s view aconsideration on the point of view of the welfare of the child wouldBonly support the order for the return of the child to his nativecountry viz., USA. For, the child is a naturalised American citizenwith American passport. He has been brought up in the socialand culture value milieu of USA and, therefore, accustomed tothe lifestyle, language, custom, rules and regulations of his nativeCcountry viz., USA. Further, he will have better avenues andprospects if he returns to USA, being a naturalised Americancitizen. [Para 16][795-C-H; 796-A]

4. This Court issued the following further directions:

D1.Respondent No.3 shall ensure that the child returnsback to United States of America forthwith. In thatregard respondent No.3 as well as the appellant,whoever is in possession of the American passportof the child in question, shall do the needful inaccordance with the law to enable the child’s returnEto his native country viz., USA; D

2. Respondent No.3 and the appellant shall takenecessary action to get the child relieved from thepresent school and also to get him admitted in anyschool in USA where the appellant is presentlyFresiding, without causing much interruption to hisstudies;

3. Respondent No.3, if she wants to accompany thechild and stay back in USA will be at liberty to doso. If she requires arrangement of accommodationGfor herself and her parents in USA she may intimateher desire in that regard to the appellant. Upon suchintimation in writing the appellant shall forthwith dothe needful to honour the assurance given to thisCourt, as noted above, so as to enable respondent H

ROHITH THAMMANA GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA &ORS.

A

No.3 and her parents, as the case may be, toaccompany the child and also to stay back in USAprovided they fulfil the necessary legal formalitiesfor their travel and stay in USA;

4. All necessary legal formalities to enable the child’ssmooth return to USA shall be taken by respondentBNo.3 and the appellant expeditiously at any ratewithin a period of two months so that there will beminimum interruption in pursuing the studies of thechild. [Para 18][796-D-H]

C

Nithya Anand Raghawan v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.(2017) 8 SCC 454 : [2017] 7 SCR 281; V. RaviChandran v. Union of India (2010) 1 SCC 174 : [2009]15 SCR 960 – relied on.

Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 112 :[1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 30 – referred to.

D

Mckee v. Mckee (1951) AC 352 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4987 of2022.

F

From the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2021 of the High Courtof Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 76 of 2020.

Prabhjit Jauhar, Ms. Tulika Bhatnagar, S. S. Jauhar, Advs. for theAppellant.

G

Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Sr. Adv., Ms. Irfana Nazeer, SiddhantBuxy, Asif Ahmed, Ms. Priyanka Vora, Advs. for the Respondents.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order datedB07.09.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WritPetition (Habeas Corpus) No.76 of 2020. The appellant herein filed thesaid Writ Petition seeking the following main relief:

“Issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriatewrit, order or direction directing the Respondents to secure theCminor Aarya Ranjini Rohith, the only child of the Petitioner, agedabout 9 years, and produce the minor Aarya Ranjini Rohith beforethis Hon’ble Court and hand over the custody of the said minorchild to the Petitioner who is the father of the minor, so that thechild can be taken to the United States of America where he wasborn and is a citizen of and where he was living and studying inDschool”.

3. As per the impugned judgment, the High Court rejected thewrit petition, but subject to the visitation rights provided, thereunder, tothe appellant. It is challenging the same that the above appeal has beenpreferred. Shorn of details, the case of the appellant may be stated asEhereunder:

“The petitioner has been residing in USA for the past twodecades or thereabouts. On 19.03.2008 the marriage betweenhim and Respondent No.3 was conducted as per Hindu rites andceremonies at Bengaluru. Soon after the marriage they shifted toFUSA and made it their matrimonial home. Both of them appliedfor Green Card (officially known as Permanent Resident Card)and obtained the same on 07.09.2010. It makes them entitled tolive and work permanently in USA. On 03.02.2011 their son AaryaRanjani Rohith was born in Washington, USA and he is anaturalised American Citizen with an American Passport. TheGchild was studying in the Third Standard in the Christa McAuliffeElementary School in Washington School District during the year2019-20.”

4. Conflicts and confrontation occurred in the connubialrelationship and they ultimately culminated in the incident which is the H

genesis of this proceeding. According to the appellant, on 03.03.2020,Respondent No.3 came to Bengaluru in India with the child, without hisconsent. At that time, the appellant was already in India to attend hisailing mother viz., from 27.02.2020 till 09.03.2020. Upon reaching USAhe realized that the child was missing from the matrimonial home. Hemade initial enquiries at the school, in vain, and thereupon lodged acomplaint with the Office of Children’s Issues, USA, alleging that thechild was kidnapped by respondent No.3-wife. Later, in the evening hecould contact his father-in-law in India and on being informed of theavailability of his wife and minor child at home in Bengaluru he withdrewthe said complaint on 11.03.2020. Subsequently, he filed the HabeasCorpus writ petition before High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru inSeptember, 2020. He has also filed a Custody Petition in the SuperiorCourt of Washington, County of King, on 22.1.2020 and obtained an ex-parte order dated 26.10.2020. The respondent was directed to returnthe child to the United States. On 29.10.2020 respondent No.3 participatedin the proceedings before the US Court and moved a motion for vacatingthe ex-parte order. Consequently, the ex-parte order to return the childwas vacated. Later, respondent No.3 filed a petition challenging thejurisdiction of the US Court and as per order dated 15.01.2020 the USCourt upheld its jurisdiction over the minor child. Still later, she herselfinvoked the jurisdiction of the Superior Court of the State of WashingtonIn and For King County, seeking temporary orders of child support andspousal support as also for appointment of a parenting evaluator. TheUS Court passed an order on 09.03.2021 granting her spousal support of$5000 USD per month subject to conditions. The US Court also passedan order directing her to return the child to US. Earlier, respondent No.3filed a custody petition bearing G & W No.246/2020 before the FamilyCourt Bengaluru. It was dismissed as being not maintainable for want ofjurisdiction under Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. (Now,the matter is pending before the High Court of Karnataka in Civil RevisionPetition No. 318/2021). According to the appellant, in the circumstancesonly the US Courts got jurisdiction to decide the question of custody ofthe minor child. The contention of the appellant is that the High Courthad ignored the orders of the US Court and also failed to take a properdecision on the question as to what would be in the best interest of thechild. The appellant has taken up contentions and also produced documentsin a bid to establish the affinity and affection of the child towards him, inthis proceeding. Obviously, his attempt is to establish that for the interestof the child, the child should return to US.

ABCDEFG

H

A5. Respondent No.3 resisted the contentions of the appellant.Before the High Court she contended that though the child was broughtto India without the appellant’s consent subsequently she was permittedto have the custody of the child by the appellant himself as also by theUS Courts. In support of the contention that the appellant had givenconsent for keeping the child in her custody she relied on an e-mail sentBby the appellant herein on 15.03.2020. The fact is that the child is now,admitted in a school in Bengaluru and he is now pursuing his studiesthere. Obviously, respondent No.3 had raised the contentions before theHigh Court to establish that the child was not in illegal or unlawful custodyand therefore, the appellant is not entitled to the prayer sought for andCon the contrary, she is entitled to continue with the custody of the minorchild.

A

A

6. A bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that theHigh Court, as per the impugned order, rejected the contentions of theappellant that the child is in unlawful custody and respondent No.3 hasDbeen continuing with the custody of child in derogation of the orders ofthe US Courts to return the child to USA. The impugned judgment wouldreveal that the court had interacted with the child in the chambers andascertained as to whether he was staying with the mother undercompulsion. Paragraph 85 of the impugned judgment would reflect whathad transpired during such interaction. It would reveal that the child hadEexpressed his desire to stay with his mother and further informed that hewas comfortable in the school and studying in the school for the past oneyear. He had also divulged the fact that he was not facing any difficultyin his schooling as also in his stay at Bengaluru. On an analysis of therival contentions and the facts mentioned in paragraph 85 the High Court Fcame to the conclusion that the child is comfortable and feels secured inthe custody of his mother in Bengaluru. Ultimately, the High Court rejectedthe writ petition, but subject to the visitation rights, specifically mentionedin paragraphs 89 to 93 therein. In this circumstances, present appeal hasbeen preferred assailing the judgment of the High Court dated 07.09.2021.

G7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and alsothe learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

8. At the outset we may state that in a matter involving the questionof custody of a child it has to be borne in mind that the question ‘what isthe wish/desire of the child’ is different and distinct from the question‘what would be in the best interest of the child’. Certainly, the wish/H

desire of the child can be ascertained through interaction but then, thequestion as to ‘what would be in the best interest of the child’ is a matterto be decided by the court taking into account all the relevantcircumstances. When couples are at loggerheads and wanted to parttheir ways as parthian shot they may level extreme allegations againsteach other so as to depict the other unworthy to have the custody of thechild. In the circumstances, we are of the view that for considering theclaim for custody of a minor child, unless very serious, proven conductwhich should make one of them unworthy to claim for custody of thechild concerned, the question can and shall be decided solely looking intothe question as to, ‘what would be the best interest of the child concerned’.In other words, welfare of the child should be the paramount consideration.In that view of the matter we think it absolutely unnecessary to discussand deal with all the contentions and allegations in their respectivepleadings and affidavits.

9. To answer the stated question and also on the question ofjurisdiction we do not think it necessary to conduct a deep survey on theauthorities. This Court in Nithya Anand Raghawan Vs. State (NCTof Delhi) & Anr. [(2017) 8 SCC 454], reiterated the principle laid inV. Ravi Chandran Vs. Union of India [(2010) 1 SCC 174] and furtherheld thus :-

“In exercise of summary jurisdiction, the court must besatisfied and of the opinion that the proceedings institutedbefore it was in close proximity and filed promptly after thechild was removed from his/her native state and broughtwithin its territorial jurisdiction, the child has not gained rootshere and further that it will be in the child’s welfare to returnto his native state because of the difference in language spokenor social customs and contacts to which he/she has beenaccustomed or such other tangible reasons. In such a casethe court need not resort to an elaborate inquiry into the meritsof the paramount welfare of the child but leave that inquiryto the foreign court by directing return of the child. Be it notedthat in exceptional cases the court can still refuse to issuedirection to return the childto the native state and moreparticularly in spite of a pre-existing order of the foreign courtin that behalf, if it is satisfied that the child’s return may exposehim to a grave risk of harm”.

(Emphasis added)

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A10. In Ravi Chandran’s case (supra), this Court took note of theactual role of the High Courts in the matter of examination of casesinvolving claim of custody of a minor based on the principle of parenspatriae jurisdiction considering the fact that it is the minor who is withinthe jurisdiction of the court. Based on such consideration it was held thateven while considering Habeas Corpus writ petition qua a minor, in aBgiven case, the High Courts may direct for return of the child or declineto change the custody of the child taking into account the attending factsand circumstances as also the settled legal position. In Nitya Anand’scase this Court had also referred to the decision in Dhanwanti JoshiVs. Madhav Unde [(1998) 1 SCC 112] which in turn was renderedCafter referring to the decision of the Privy Council in Mckee Vs. Mckee[(1951) AC 352]. In Mckee’s case the Privy Council held that theorder of the foreign court would yield to the welfare and that the comityof courts demanded not its enforcement, but its grave consideration.Though, India is not a signatory to Hague Convention of 1980, on the“Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction”, this Court, virtually,Dimbibing the true spirit of the principle of parens patriae jurisdiction,went on to hold in Nithya Anand Raghavan’s case thus:

“40. ... As regards the non-Convention countries, the law is thatthe court in the country to which the child has been removed mustconsider the question on merits bearing the welfare of the child asEof paramount importance and reckon the order of the foreign courtas only a factor to be taken into consideration, unless the courtthinks it fit to exercise summary jurisdiction in the interests of thechild and its prompt return is for its welfare. In exercise ofsummary jurisdiction, the court must be satisfied and of the opinionFthat the proceeding instituted before it was in close proximity andfiled promptly after the child was removed from his/her nativestate and brought within its territorial jurisdiction, the child has notgained roots here and further that it will be in the child’s welfareto return to his native state because of the difference in languagespoken or social customs and contacts to which he/she has beenGaccustomed or such other tangible reasons. In such a case thecourt need not resort to an elaborate inquiry into the merits of theparamount welfare of the child but leave that inquiry to the foreigncourt by directing return of the child. Be it noted that in exceptionalcases the court can still refuse to issue direction to return theHchild to the native state and more particularly in spite of a pre-

existing order of the foreign court in that behalf, if it is satisfiedthat the child’s return may expose him to a grave risk of harm.This means that the courts in India, within whose jurisdiction theminor has been brought must “ordinarily” consider the questionon merits, bearing in mind the welfare of the child as of paramountimportance whilst reckoning the pre-existing order of the foreigncourt if any as only one of the factors and not get fixated therewith.In either situation – be it a summary inquiry or an elaborate inquiry– the welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. Thus,while examining the issue the courts in India are free to declinethe relief of return of the child brought within its jurisdiction, if it issatisfied that the child is now settled in its new environment or ifit would expose the child to physical or psychological harm orotherwise place the child in an intolerable position or if the child isquite mature an objects to its return. We are in respectful agreementwith the aforementioned exposition.”

11. Having taken note of the position thus settled in the saiddecisions we will now consider the question whether such an exercisehad been undertaken properly in this case. This is because in this caseforeign Court, as noted above, passed orders for the return of the childto USA. There is nothing on record to show that such an order passedon the second occasion was also vacated subsequently. True that thefirst order to that effect passed on 26.10.2020 was subsequently vacatedat the instance of the third respondent on 30.10.2020. However, goingby the records the subsequent order passed in March 2021 SuperiorCourt of Washington, County of King for the return of the child owing tonon-compliance led to further order for contempt on 29.4.2021. TheHigh Court, obviously, observed that though the U.S Court subsequentlysuspended the order of spousal support did not pass any order regardingthe custody of the child and hence, custody of the child is continuingwith respondent No.3. We have referred to those aspects solely for thepurpose of pointing out that the High Court was aware of the existenceof order for the return of the child by the US Court.

12. Be that as it may, we will now consider the question whetherconsideration was bestowed by the High Court in the matter in terms ofthe position settled by this Court in the aforementioned decisions i.e., bygiving predominant importance to the welfare of the child. A scanning ofthe impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court had rightly AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aidentified the vital aspect that paramount consideration should be givento the welfare of the child while considering the matter.

13. We have stated earlier that the question ‘what is the wish/desire of the child’ can be ascertained through interaction, but then, thequestion as to ‘what would be the best interest of the child’ is a matter toBbe decided by the court taking into account all the relevant circumstances.A careful scrutiny of the impugned judgment would, however, revealthat even after identifying the said question rightly the High Court hadswayed away from the said point and entered into consideration of certainaspects not relevant for the said purpose. We will explain the raisond’etre for the said remark.C

14. The High Court, after taking note of the various proceedingsinitiated by the appellant before the US Courts formed an opinion that hehad initiated such proceedings only with an intention to enhance his chanceof success in the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition and to pre-empt anymove by the wife (respondent No.3) for custody by approaching theDIndian Courts. In other words, the initiation of proceedings before theUS Court was motivated and definitely not in good faith and was alsonot in the best interests of the son. In this context, it is relevant to notethat US Court concerned had, admittedly, ordered for the return of thechild and owing to the non-compliance with the said order initiated actionEfor contempt. The spousal support order passed by the US Court wasalso suspended for the reason of non-compliance with the order forreturn of the child. When US Court was moved and the court had passedorders the above mentioned observation can only be regarded as onemade at a premature stage and it was absolutely uncalled for and itvirtually affected the process of consideration of the issue finally. WhenFthe US Court passed such orders and not orders on the custody of thechild it ought not to have been taken as permission for respondent No.3to keep the custody of the child. At any rate, after the order for return ofthe child and orders for contempt such a plea of the respondent No.3ought not to have been entertained.G

15. Considering the fact that the marriage between the appellantand respondent No.3 was conducted in Bengaluru in accordance withHindu rites and ceremonies, the High Court held that the US Courts gotno jurisdiction to entertain any dispute arising out of the marriage. Thisconclusion was arrived at without taking into account the efficacy of theHorder passed by the US Court. It was not strictly for the return of respondent No.3 but was an order intending to facilitate the return of anaturalised citizen of America holding an American Passport. Paragraph85 of the impugned judgment would reveal that the High Court hadenquired about the desire and comfort of the child with respect to hisschooling and stay during the interaction. The court found that the childexpressed no difficulty in his schooling or his stay in Bengaluru andultimately satisfied that the child is comfortable and secure with stayingwith his mother.

16. The child in question is a boy, now around 11 years and anaturalised US citizen with an American passport and his parents viz.,the appellant and respondent No.3 are holders of Permanent US ResidentCards. These aspects were not given due attention. So also, the factthat child in question was born in USA on 03.02.2011 and till the year2020 he was living and studying there, was also not given due weightwhile considering question of welfare of the child. Merely because hewas brought to India by the mother on 03.03.2020 and got him admittedin a school and that he is now feeling comfortable with schooling andstay in Bengaluru could not have been taken as factors for consideringthe welfare of the boy aged 11 years born and lived nearly for a decadein USA. The very fact that he is a naturalised citizen of US with Americanpassport and on that account he might, in all probability, have good avenuesand prospects in the country where he is a citizen. This crucial aspecthas not been appreciated at all. In our view, taking into account theentire facts and circumstances and the environment in which the childhad born and was brought up for about a decade coupled with the factthat he is a naturalised American citizen, his return to America would bein his best interest. In this case it is also to be noted that on two occasionsAmerican courts ordered to return the child to USA. True that the firstorder to that effect was vacated at the instance of respondent No.3.However, taking into account all aspects, we are of the view that it is nota fit case where courts in India should refuse to acknowledge the ordersof the US Courts directing return of the minor child to the appellantkeeping in view the best interests of the child. In our view, a considerationon the point of view of the welfare of the child would only support theorder for the return of the child to his native country viz., USA. For, thechild is a naturalised American citizen with American passport. He hasbeen brought up in the social and culture value milieu of USA and,therefore, accustomed to the lifestyle, language, custom, rules andregulations of his native country viz., USA. Further, he will have better AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aavenues and prospects if he returns to USA, being a naturalised Americancitizen.

17. In this case during the course of the arguments the learnedcounsel for the appellant on behalf of the appellant submitted that incase respondent No.3 wants to return and stay in US with her parentsBso as to have proximity to and opportunity to take care of the child theappellant is prepared to do the needful, if the respondent No.3 so desires.It is further submitted that the appellant is also prepared to find suitableaccommodation for them in that regard.

18. In the light of the above discussion, we allow the appeal andCthe impugned judgment passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (HabeasCorpus) No.76/2020 is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition standsallowed and we issue following further directions:

(i) Respondent No.3 shall ensure that the child returns back toUnited States of America forthwith. In that regard respondent No.3 asDwell as the appellant, whoever is in possession of the American passportof the child in question, shall do the needful in accordance with the lawto enable the child’s return to his native country viz., USA;

(ii) Respondent No.3 and the appellant shall take necessary actionto get the child relieved from the present school and also to get himEadmitted in any school in USA where the appellant is presently residing,without causing much interruption to his studies;

(iii) Respondent No.3, if she wants to accompany the child andstay back in USA will be at liberty to do so. If she requires arrangementof accommodation for herself and her parents in USA she may intimateFher desire in that regard to the appellant. Upon such intimation in writingthe appellant shall forthwith do the needful to honour the assurance givento this Court, as noted above, so as to enable respondent No.3 and herparents, as the case may be, to accompany the child and also to stayback in USA provided they fulfil the necessary legal formalities for theirtravel and stay in USA; G

(iv) All necessary legal formalities to enable the child’s smoothreturn to USA shall be taken by respondent No.3 and the appellantexpeditiously at any rate within a period of two months so that there willbe minimum interruption in pursuing the studies of the child.

H

19. We also make it clear that if respondent No.3 requires custodyor visitation rights of the child, she may do so by invoking the jurisdictionof appropriate forum in USA. Further, the observations made in thisjudgment shall not come in the way of respondent No.3, as the statedproceedings will have to proceed independently.

20. There will be no order as to costs.

21. The appeal is disposed of as above.

22. All pending applications are disposed of.

Ankit Gyan

Appeal disposed of.

(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)

797A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H