KESHAV ARJUN CHARANIA Vs. INDIRA KESHAV CHARANIA

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 211 of 2017, Judgment Date: Jan 06, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 211  OF 2017
                   (ARISING FROM SLP(C) NO.29031 OF 2015)


KESHAV ARJUN CHARANIA                                           APPELLANT(S)

                                VERSUS

INDIRA KESHAV CHARANIA                                         RESPONDENT(S)


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    The appellant is before this Court,  aggrieved  by  an  interim  order
passed by the High Court.  The issue pertains to the custody  of  the  minor
child by name Priyanka.
3.    Having heard learned counsel on both sides,  it  is  very  clear  that
they have no objection in continuing the earlier arrangement of 2nd and  4th
Saturday overnight access, till the matter is finally  disposed  of  by  the
High Court.
4.    Consent terms for access dated 10.03.2011,  agreed and signed  by  the
parties read as follows:-

            “CONSENT TERMS FOR ACCESS
      Both the  parties  have  arrived  at  following  settlement  regarding
access to the respondent-mother:
1.    Both the parties state that they have  a  daughter  by  name  Priyanka
aged 10 years presently staying with the petitioner-father.
2.    It is agreed between  both  the  parties  that  the  mother-respondent
shall avail  access  to  their  daughter  on  every  2nd  and  4th  Saturday
overnight access.  The Respondent-mother shall come to the residence of  the
petitioner-father where the daughter Priyanka stays at near  Sahakar  Cinema
Chembur and take her to her house  at  Ghatkopar  and  return  her  back  on
following Sunday at 5.00 p.m.
3.    Said access shall commence from April-2011 onwards.
4.    Both the parties shall maintain the  diary  where  the  access  timing
shall be maintained by both of them.

Petitioner       Before me     Respondent
10th March, 2011”

5.    According to the learned counsel for  the  respondent,  the  appellant
has not  been  honouring  the  consent  terms  for  access,  though,  it  is
otherwise disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6.    Be that as it may, since the matter is pending before the High  Court,
we do not want to go into the merits of the matter.  It is made  clear  that
the overnight custody on 2nd  and  4th  Saturday  arrangement  in  terms  of
consent terms  for  access  dated  10.03.2011  will  continue  and  will  be
strictly complied with till the matter is finally disposed of  by  the  High
Court.  In case there is any difficulty in implementation of this order,  it
will be open to the parties to seek appropriate clarification from the  High
Court.
7.     With  the  above  observations  and  directions,  the  appeal  stands
disposed of.
8.    Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

                                                   .......................J.
                                                             [KURIAN JOSEPH]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [A.M. KHANWILKAR]
      NEW DELHI;
      JANUARY 06, 2017.