Lt Col Manish Sehgal v. Mrs Meenu Sehgal

order as to the merits. the petition for custody convenience preferably by

(iv) The present direction shall bind the parties and be subjectto final ordersin the custodypetition. Page 14 of15 . J ^3

¶16To give effect to the above directions, counsel for the parties shall be presentbefore the GuardianshipCourt on 6^*^ January, 2014. This Court hereby clarifies that it has not expressed its approval with respect to the Trial Court's observations as regards the appellant's alleged matrimonial relationship. Those are ultimately matters for trial, and nothing stated or observed here shall be construed as an expression of the merit of either party's claim which has to be decided finally, after considering rival contentions and the materials placed on the record of the Trial Court.

¶17The appeal is dismissed, subject to the above modifications. No costs. Order Dasti to both parties. DECEMBER 18,2013 RN NAJMIWAZIRI (JUDGE) S.RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE) Page 15 of15

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 18.12.2013 + MAT. APP. (FC) NO.29/2013. CM APPL.12745/2013 LT COL MANISH SEHGAL Appellant Through: Mr. Vikas Tomar, Advocate along with appellant in person. versus MRS MEENU SEHGAL i Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Sibal & Mr. Bharat Arora, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMIWAZIRI % MR. NAJMI WAZIRI (Open Court) 1. This is a father's appeal againstan order of 5^ August2013 by the Family Court granting custody of his two minor daughters to their mother - the respondent. The respondent/mother had earlier been granted interim custody by the same court for the Diwali vacations and the school winter holidays last year i.e. on 14^^ and 15^^ November,2012 and also from 29^^ December,2012 to 6^^^ January, Page 1 of15 I The mother had filed the I ^ 2013 respectively.The coujple had separatedon 16^ August, 2012. ipplication for guardianship and interim custodyof the minorchildrenon 1^^ November,2012. 2. Uponbeingpermittedby th^ Court,the mothermet the childrenSana and Sarah (aged 7 and 9 years) during the Diwali festival in Lucknow, where they are studying i|i classes 4 and 6 respectivelyin City Montessori School. However for the winter vacations, she was not giventheir custodyby the father. Pursuantto the proceedingsofnon compliance of the latter order, the Family Court directed the Commissioner of Police to cepute a person not below the rank of ACP / a lady officer to accompan children along with the res y the petitionerto Lucknowand bringthe iDondent to the Family Court. The father jared in Court and the application of the 18^^ May, 2013. Agamstthis order both and the minor children app mother was disposed off on parentsappealedto the High Court.The appealsweredisposedoff on 29^ May, 2013 with a diredtionto the TrialJudge to considerafresh the statementsof the partie^before it for an interimarrangementnot only for the summervacationsbut also interimarrangementsduring the pendency of the proceedingsbefore the Trial Judge. The High Page 2 of15 r Court made it clear thafotheFamily Court would not be affected by the opinion expressed by it for the fresh reconsideration while giving directions which the Trial Court may be required to give. 3. Both parties moved applications for modification of the order dated 18^ May, 2013. The applicationmoved by the mother sought two reliefs: i) grant of temporary custody of the minor girls for the ensuing summon vacationsfrom to 25^ of June 2012 and ii) a decision afresh for their interim custody during the pendency of the petition. She claimed that she had been unduly deprived of the society of the children although she had taken care of them and that such deprivation had caused her immense mental agony and irreparable loss. She also highlighted the fact that the father had not handed over the custody of the children during the winter vacations despite clear Court orders in that regard. In response the father stated that the mother was only concerned about her personal care and career and that it was, in fact, he who had been taking care of the children since their birth as the mother had shown no such interest in their upbringing.He ftirthercontendedthat the childrenwere emotionally I attached to him and had categorically expressed their preference of Mat.App. (FC)No.29/2013 Page 3 of15 I not wanting to be with tbeii mother. 4. The Trial Court consider mother's allegations and e father, his alleged extra ma the wife contended) was c divorce proceedings, letters this regard, their phone cal address of both persons. ed the contention of the parties. The vidence was regarding alcoholism of the terialrelationshipwith anotherlady, (who mtemporaneously going through her own betweenher and the presentappellantin records,proximityof the Delhi- Kalkaji ( The niaterialsrelied on by the appellant furtherwere lettersadducedby him- in oppositionto the application for custody, said to have been written by his dau