RUCHIKA ABBI &ANR. versus STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI &  ANR.
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 900, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Holding
A 
B 
[2015] 11 S.C.R. 900 
RUCHIKA ABBI &ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & 
ANR. 
Criminal Appeal No.1683 of2015 
DECEMBER 09, 2015 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR 
SAPRE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Art.226- Habeas corpus 
c petition- By wife-Against her husband- Seeking production 
and return of her minor daughter- High Court disposed of 
the petition, directing the Family Court to dispose of the 
pending custody case- On appeal, Family Court directed to 
dispose of the pending custody case keeping in view the 
D paramount interest and welfare of the child - During 
pendency of the custody case, temporary custody granted 
to husband/father with direction to father to drop the child for 
one day in a week to the mother/wife- Parents advised not 
to take advantage of the temporary custody for tutoring the 
E child and create hatred against others- Parents also advised 
to come to mutual terms in the interest of the child- Family 
Court directed to hold regular sittings for reconciliation during 
pendency of the custody case- Family Law- Child Welfare. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal 
F Appeal No. 1683 of 2015 
From Judgment and Order dated 07.11.2014 of High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1735 of 2014. 
WITH 
Conmt. Pet. (C) No. 382 of 2015 in SLP (~rl.) No. 2372/2015 
G 
Pritpal Nijjar, Aditya Singla, Ambika Nijjar, Am it Kumar, 
Ritika Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, for the Appellants. 
Jagjit Singh, Bhagat
Singh, Dr. Kailash Chand, Dr. 
Abhishek Atrey, P. K. Dey, D. s. Mahra, for the Respondents. 
H 
The Order of the Court was delivered by
f 
RUCHIKAABBI v. STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL 
901 
TERRITORY OF DELHI 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
A 
2. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order 
dated 07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New 
Delhi in Writ Petition (Criminal) No .. 1735 of 2014 whereby the 
High Court disposed of the Habe~s Corpus writ petition filed 
by the appellant herein for the production and return of the minor B 
daughter by issuing directions. 
3. It is not necessary to set out the facts of the case in 
detail except to state that the dispute which revolves around 
between the parties (wife-appellant herein and husband-
respondent no. 2 herein) is essentially in relation to the custody C 
~ftheir minordaughter-Roshni. 
4. So far as this appeal is concerned, as mentioned 
above, it aris_es out of final judgment and order dated 
07.11.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in 0 
a habeas corpus petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) No. 1735 of2014 
filed by the wife against her husband seeking production and 
return of her minor daughter and praying for some 
consequential reliefs therein. The High Court, by impugned 
judgment, disposed of the writ petition inter alia directing the E 
Family Court to dispose ofthe main custody case. 
· 5. This Court, during the pendency of the proceedings, 
had passed some interim orders regarding temporary custody 
of the child. 
· 
6. Heard Mrs. Nitya Ramakrishnan, learned counsel for F 
the appellant, Mr. Jagjit Singh,
learned counsel for respondent 
No.1 and Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
having interacting wtth the child, we feel that it would be just 
and proper to direct the Family Court, which has seized of the G 
main custody case (Guardianship Case No. 115/2014) to 
dispose of the pending main case, i.e., Guardianship Case 
No. 115/2014, on merits preferably within six months as an 
outer limit strictly in accordance with Jaw keeping in view the 
paramount interest and welfare of the child and all relevant 
H
• 
902 
. . SUPREME COURT REPORTS'_'.- . ; [2.015] 11 S.C.R. 
:. 
~- . __ > .-.. .: . . ,: 
-· 
. 
. . . 
\ 
. 
. 
. . . " 
-. 
A 
factors necessary for deciding the custody of minor child 
. 
. . . 
. 
~ . . 
. -. 
. -. 
: . . 
. . . 
uninfluenced by any of our observat1o~s. ·-. 
_- ·. . 
. 
_ 
· · ~ - D~ring the penden~y of the mai~ c~stody case, the 
tempo·r.ciry ~i.Jstod{ of_ the child_-RC?shni yvil_l be with the 
respondent' no. 2 ~i.e. husband/father: The respondent no. 2 
B will drop the child-on every Saturday by 6 .. 00 pm. at the 
petitioner's residence and collect the child by 6.00 pm. on the 
next day (Sunday). 
. · 
· ·-
. 
· 
~ 
· 9. We hope, trust arid expect from the appelfant and 
-
respondent no. 2 to cooperate with _each other~or the sake of 
C 
their 1iiinor child's welfare and taking advafltage of temporary 
custody of the child not to influence her inno'cent mind by 
tutoring her arid create hatred against others fc:>r their personal 
interest-a fact. which we unfortunately notic~d while interacting 
with the child on two occasions. Indeed. we feel that such 
0 
attempt on their part and especially, respondent no. 2 may do 
more harm to the child in long run. 
10. rn our view, both parties being young and highly 
educated should realize such things for the welfare oi their own 
. 
-
· E child and make sincere efforts to GO me to mutual terms so that 
every one is able to live happily and enjoy family life. Such 
steps, if taken, will always be in the
interest of everyone 
including the child who needs protection, guidance, care, love 
and affection of both mother a~d father, who were responsible 
F- to bring her in this world. 
11. We, therefore, direct the Fa miry Court to hold regular 
sittings for reconciliation during the pendency of the custody . 
case and if considers necessary for the welfare and interest 
of the child pass any interim orders till final disposal of the 
G custody case. 
12. W ith the-se directions; the appeal stands disposed 
of finally.· 
13. In the light of the order passed hereinabove in the 
appeal, no orders are required in the contempt petition. 
H Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal disposed of . 
• 
. 
;