Scribd
Upload
143 views2 pages

Statement of Facts

The document outlines a dispute over custody of a child, Karan, between his maternal and paternal grandparents. Karan's father passed away in 2014, and his mother Anisha remarried in 2016, leaving Karan in the custody of her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Mehta. When Karan's paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Kumar, learned of this they sought custody. The Family Court rejected both sides' requests, maintaining that the child's mother Anisha as the natural guardian. The Delhi High Court later upheld this ruling.

Uploaded by

Sujit Jha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
143 views2 pages

Statement of Facts

The document outlines a dispute over custody of a child, Karan, between his maternal and paternal grandparents. Karan's father passed away in 2014, and his mother Anisha remarried in 2016, leaving Karan in the custody of her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Mehta. When Karan's paternal grandparents, Mr. and Mrs. Kumar, learned of this they sought custody. The Family Court rejected both sides' requests, maintaining that the child's mother Anisha as the natural guardian. The Delhi High Court later upheld this ruling.

Uploaded by

Sujit Jha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS

PARTIES INVOLVED

MR. RAKESH MEHTA & MRS. SANJANA MEHTA: They are parents of Anisha and at
present they have the custody of the child that is Karan who is Anisa’s son.

DR. ARJUN KUMAR & MRS. ANJALI KUMAR: They are the parents of Dr. Neraj who
is late husband of Anisha.

BACKGROUND

Anisha, the daughter of Mrs. Sanjana Mehta and Mr. Rakesh Mehta is a well-established
businesswoman in Palam, New Delhi. Dr. Neeraj, the son of Mrs. Anjali Kumar and Dr. Arjun
Kumar is a PhD holder and a professor at R. M University, New Delhi.

10th December 2007: Anisha got married to Neeraj as per Hindu Rites and she shifted with
Neeraj to stay along with her in-laws at Saket, New Delhi.

2008: From the said wedlock the couple was blessed with a son named Karan .

They belonged to a middle-class background but afforded all the comforts to Karan and was
loved and pampered by his grandparents. Dr. Arjun enjoyed spending most of the time with
his grandson and used to take Karan to school, vacations and imbibed in him all the valuable

morals.

2014: When Karan was six years old, his father Neeraj passed away.

Anisha shifted to her paternal home along with her son, Karan.

29th November, 2016: She got married to Mr. Rohan, a businessman at Gurgaon, Haryana.

Mr. Rohan already had two sons so Anisha left her child with her parents. Karan was
pampered with love and gifts at his maternal grandparents’ house. Mr. and Mrs. Mehta had
to travel for work about 300 kms away from their residence and returned home to their
grandchild only on weekends. Two caretakers and a driver were appointed to take him to
Scholl 55kms away..
DISPUTE

When Mr. and Mrs. Kumar came to know about Anisha’s remarriage and the fact that she
had not taken the child along with her, they asked Anisha and her parents for the custody of
the child to which they refused.

RULING OF DELHI HC – 16TH DECEMBER, 2019

The High Court also rejected the appeals stating that there is no error of law made by the

Family Court in its orders. .

RULING OF FAMILY COURT– 12TH MARCH, 2018

25th February, 2017: Mr. Kumar filed an application u/s 7 of the Guardians and Wards Act,
1890, for their appointment as guardians and custodian of the child in the Family Court also
filed a separate application for injunction against Anisha restraining her from giving the child
in adoption to anyone including her parents.

26th February, 2017: Granted an ex-parte order of injunction against Anisha and issued
notice to file objection by 26.3.2017 for show cause.

Mr. Mehta filed objection stating that the child was given to him in adoption by Anisha,
verbally on 22.2.2017 and by a deed of adoption executed and registered on 27.2.2017. He
prayed for vacation of the order of injunction and appointment as guardian of the child on
the strength of the adoption deed.

In the meanwhile, Mr. Kumar had brought a separate suit before the District Judge for
cancellation of the deed of adoption executed in favour of Mr Mehta.

The Family court after hearing the matter:

(i) Rejected the prayer of Mr. Mehta on the ground that the matter of adoption was
pending before the District Court.
(ii) Rejected the prayer of Mr. Kumar on the ground that, in presence of natural
guardian court cannot appoint any guardian.
(iii) Allowed the prayer of Anisha on the sole ground that she was the mother
(natural guardian) of the child.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy