The petitioner had preferred a habeas corpus petition before the High Court of Kerala for issuance of an appropriate direction to produce her daughter in the Court, to which the High Court did not accede. The reason for not acceding to the request by the High Court was that the daughter had completed 18 years of age on 19.9.2016. The contention advanced by the mother that she was in illegal custody of the first respondent, the husband, in Kuwait, was not accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court. It came to a categorical conclusion that there had been no illegal detention of the daughter at Kuwait and, therefore, the prayer for habeas corpus was not sustainable. Signature Not Verified

During the pendency of SLP(Crl.) No. 6237/2017, Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date: 2018.01.05 18:51:36 IST Reason: Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1606/2017 was filed, alleging that the orders passed by this Court in SLP(C) No. 18761/2011 had been blatantly violated by the CONMT.PET.(C) 1606/2017 2 husband-contemnor. To appreciate the contentions raised in the contempt petition, it is necessary to refer to the order dated 5.8.2011 passed in the said special leave petition, which is to the following effect:-

At this juncture, Mr. P.A. Noor Muhamed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-mother would submit that her opinion is not an informed one and she has been pressurized by the respondent-husband. For the aforesaid purpose, he has drawn our attention to certain Emails, which were sent by the daughter to the petitioner-mother in the year 2016. We do not intend to refer to the contents of the said Emails. Suffice it to state that we had directed the daughter of the petitioner to remain personally present in Court and gave the responsibility to the father to see that she is present. She has appeared. She has, without any hesitation, clearly stated that she intends to go back to Kuwait to pursue her career. In such a situation, we are of the considered opinion that as a major, she is entitled to exercise her choice and freedom and the Court cannot get into the aspect whether she has been forced by the father or not. There may be ample reasons on her behalf to go back to her father in Kuwait, but we are not concerned with her reasons. What she has stated before the Court, that alone matters and that is the heart of the reasoning for this Court, which keeps all controversies at bay.

It needs no special emphasis to state that attaining the age of majority in an individual's life has its own significance. She/he is entitled to make her/his CONMT.PET.(C) 1606/2017 6 choice. The Courts cannot, as long as the choice remains, assume the role of parens patriae. The daughter is entitled to enjoy her freedom as the law permits and the Court should not assume the role of a super guardian being moved by any kind of sentiment of the mother or the egotism of the father. We say so without any reservation.

As far as the son is concerned, he is still a minor. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that as per the order dated 1.9.2017 passed in Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 1606/2017 in SLP(C) No. 18761/2011 and SLP(Crl.) No. 6237/2017, the orders passed in the earlier contempt petition [Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 223/2012] and the reasoned order passed by the learned Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram in a petition filed under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 , the petitioner-mother will be entitled to have interim custody during his summer vacation. However, if during the summer vacation, the son is undergoing any essential summer courses, that period will be excluded (not exceeding one month).

As the son is coming to stay with the mother during the summer vacation, it is directed that the respondent-husband shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the petitioner-mother on every visit of the child. The respondent-husband shall inform the petitioner-mother about the flight and other relevant CONMT.PET.(C) 1606/2017 7 details well in advance. Needless to say, the petitioner-mother would be entitled to talk to the son and the respondent-husband shall not create any kind of disturbance in that regard.

The special leave petition and the contempt petition are accordingly disposed of. All pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

..................CJI.

[Dipak Misra] ....................J. [A.M. Khanwilkar] ....................J. [Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud] New Delhi;

January 5, 2018.

CONMT.PET.(C) 1606/2017 8 ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.1 SECTION XI-A S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1606/2017 in SLP(C) No. 18761/2011 SONI GERRY Petitioner VERSUS GERRY DOUGLAS Respondent (FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 76564/2017 and IA No.332/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.) WITH SLP(Crl.) No. 6237/2017 (II-B) (FOR PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ON IA 75436/2017 FOR PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES ON IA 75437/2017 FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 75438/2017 and IA No.92216/2017-impleading party) Date : 05-01-2018 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :