Shyam Gupta And Anr. vs Rajni Gupta
2015 Latest Caselaw 117 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+             CS(OS) 3946/2014 & IA No.25753/2014

                                             Decided on: 08.01.2015

IN THE MATTER OF

SHYAM GUPTA AND ANR.                                ..... Plaintiffs

                        Through Ms.Geeta Luthra, Sr.Advocate with
                        Ms.Deepti Dwivedi, Advocate with plaintiffs
                        and Dr.Vikas Gupta in person

                        versus


RAJNI GUPTA                                      ..... Defendant

                        Through Mr.Rakesh Mukhija, Advocate with
                        defendant in person

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. On the last date of hearing, i.e., on 5.1.2015, it was noted

that having regard to the nature of relief prayed for by the plaintiffs

and taking into consideration the fact that the dispute is between

the parents-in-law and the daughter-in-law, their presence was

required for today. However, it appears that due to a typing error,

the next date of hearing was noted in the order sheet as 5.2.2015.

As all the parties were directed to remain present today, counsels

for both the sides had mentioned the matter at 10.30AM and

informed the court that though the parties are present, but the case

has not been reflected in today's cause list. Accordingly, the file has

been summoned from the Registry and before taking up the matter,

it has been duly circulated in the supplementary cause list.

2. The defendant who is present in court and represented

through counsel, denies the allegations levelled by the plaintiffs

against her and states that ever since she had left their residence in

the year 2011, she has not visited the same, much less threatened

the plaintiffs either on the telephone or by any other means. She

submits that when she had last visited the residence of the plaintiffs

sometime in the year 2012, it was only to ask after the health of

her husband, Dr. Vikas Gupta, who had undergone a surgery and

the telephonic calls that she had made were to speak to her minor

son who is residing with her husband and the in-laws. She states

that her son has been spending weekends between Fridays and

Sundays and some school holidays with her on several occasions.

3. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs denies the aforesaid

submissions and informs the Court that Dr.Vikas Gupta, the

defendant's husband has already filed an application under Section

12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, registered as G.S. No.158/2014

and summons were issued in the said suit on 29.11.2014,

returnable on 24.1.2015. She submits that an interim order has

been granted by the Guardianship Court to the effect that the

defendant herein will not interfere in the custody of the minor son,

till further orders.

4. Learned counsel for the defendant states that his client shall

take appropriate steps to enter appearance in the aforesaid

proceedings and contest the said suit as also seek vacation of the

interim orders. He, however, assures the court that the defendant

had never visited the residence of her in-laws after leaving the

same in the year 2011 and nor does she intend to so in the near

future, except in accordance with law.

5. As for the second relief prayed for in the suit which is for

issuance of directions to the defendant not to make calls on the

phone installed by the plaintiffs at their residence, learned counsel

for the defendant states that this is the only mode of

communication between the defendant and her minor son and if the

plaintiffs or Dr.Vikas Gupta are willing to provide a mobile number

so that the defendant can speak directly to him till appropriate

orders are passed by the Guardianship Court, she would not call up

on the landline installed at the residence of the plaintiffs.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs states that a mobile number

shall be furnished to the counsel for the defendant in the course of

the day and the defendant shall be at liberty to speak to her son on

the said number between 4 to 5PM on Saturdays and on Sundays,

till appropriate directions are issued by the Guardianship Court in

the pending proceedings. The said suggestion is acceptable to the

other side as an interim measure.

7. While binding the parties to the aforesaid statements, with

their consent, the present suit is disposed of along with pending

application, while leaving them to bear their own costs. It may be

clarified here that this Court has refrained from making any

observations on the merits of the case and the parties shall be at

liberty to take all the pleas on facts and in law before the

Guardianship Court.

8. The date already fixed stands cancelled.

                                                (HIMA KOHLI)
JANUARY 08, 2015                                 JUDGE
mk/rkb