Leave granted.
This is an unfortunate case where the father of ‘X’ (name
suppressed) filed the present appeal claiming that he is not being
allowed to interact and meet with ‘X’. The impugned judgment dated
20.09.2024 referred to the report of the Court Commissioner, who had
interacted with ‘X’, etc.
By the order dated 25.10.2024, this Court has passed the
following order:
The petitioner, Sushant Sharma, will be
allowed to interact and be with his son.
However, the child will not be allowed to
be taken out of the country.
All other persons who were meeting and
interacting with the child earlier will
also be permitted to interact with him.
The assets belonging to the child will
not be alienated, transferred or encumbered
till the next date of hearing.
babita pandey
There has been substantial compliance with the aforesaid order
though applications have been filed making allegations and counter
allegations. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4, Damini
Goswamy, that she has not been permitted to meet ‘X’. We would only
observe that she may be permitted to meet ‘X’.
In order to prevent any untoward incident, we deem it
appropriate to appoint Mr. Chritarth Palli, learned Advocate-on-
Record, who is present in Court, as a Court Commissioner, who will
oversee and ensure the installation of CCTV cameras, with video-
recording facility for a period of 96 hours, at appropriate locations
designated by him in the house. The expenses for installation of the
CCTV cameras will be borne by respondent No. 3, Kalindi Hamal. Mr.
Chritarthi Palli, the Court Commissioner, will be paid appropriate
lodging and boarding expenses in addition to an amount of ₹1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only), which amounts shall be paid by the appellant,
Sushant Sharma.
The appellant has stated to have already moved before the
Guardianship Court, Chandigarh under the Persons with Disabilities
Act, 2016,1 where the proceedings are pending. There are civil suits
pending inter-se the parties with regard to certain other assets, etc.
The interim order dated 25.10.2024 passed by this Court shall
continue to operate till it is modified, vacated or affirmed by the
Court under the 2016 Act. We request the said Court to take up the
proceedings for hearing expeditiously. The Court would be entitled to
take the help of Counselor(s), if required and necessary.
Further, we clarify that we have not examined the question of
applicability of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with
1For short, “2016 Act”.
Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities
Act, 1999, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. This
issue, it is stated, is pending for examination in a writ petition
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order
and in the earlier order dated 25.10.2024 are tentative and prima
facie and the same will not be treated as final and binding findings,
as already recorded above. It is open to the Guardianship Court under
the 2016 Act or any other enactment, if applicable, to modify, vacate
or amend the directions. Further the aforesaid directions will not, in
any way, deter any other jurisdictional tribunal or forum, where
proceedings are pending, from passing orders in accordance with law.
It is also directed that the respondents shall not raise any
technical objection with regard to the nomination for appointment of
an attorney by the appellant, Sushant Sharma.
Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and disposed of
in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14618 of 2024)
Leave granted.
This is an unfortunate case where the father of the child (name
suppressed) filed the present appeal claiming that he is not being
allowed to interact and meet with the child. The impugned judgment
dated 20.09.2024 referred to the report of the Court Commissioner, who
had interacted with the child, etc.
By the order dated 25.10.2024, this Court has passed the
following order:
The petitioner, Sushant Sharma, will be
allowed to interact and be with his son.
However, the child will not be allowed to
be taken out of the country.
All other persons who were meeting and
interacting with the child earlier will
also be permitted to interact with him.
The assets belonging to the child will
not be alienated, transferred or encumbered
till the next date of hearing.
There has been substantial compliance with the aforesaid order
though applications have been filed making allegations and counter
allegations. It is submitted on behalf of respondent No. 4, Damini
Goswamy, that she has not been permitted to meet the child.
In order to prevent any untoward incident, we deem it
appropriate to appoint Mr. Chritarth Palli, learned Advocate-on-
Record, who is present in Court, as a Court Commissioner, who will
oversee and ensure the installation of CCTV cameras, with video-
recording facility for a period of 96 hours, at appropriate locations
designated by him in the house. The expenses for installation of the
CCTV cameras will be borne by respondent No. 3, Kalindi Hamal. Mr.
Chritarthi Palli, the Court Commissioner, will be paid appropriate
lodging and boarding expenses in addition to an amount of ₹1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh only), which amounts shall be paid by the appellant,
Sushant Sharma.
The parties are stated to have already moved the Court under the
Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,2 where proceedings are pending. There
are civil suits pending inter-se the parties with regard to certain
other assets, etc.
The interim order dated 25.10.2024 passed by this Court shall
continue to operate till it is modified, vacated or affirmed by the
Court under the 1890 Act. We request the said Court to take up the
proceedings for hearing expeditiously. The Court would be entitled to
take the help of Counselor(s), if required and necessary.
Further, we clarify that we have not examined the question of
applicability of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with
Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities
2For short, “1890 Act”.
Act, 1999, and the rules and regulations framed thereunder. This
issue, it is stated, is pending for examination in a writ petition
before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
It is also clarified that the observations made in this order
and in the earlier order dated 25.10.2024 are tentative and prima
facie and the same will not be treated as final and binding findings,
as already recorded above. It is open to the Court under the 1890 Act
or any other enactment, if applicable, to modify, vacate or amend the
directions. Further the aforesaid directions will not, in any way, deter
any other jurisdictional tribunal or forum, where proceedings are
pending, from passing orders in accordance with law.
It is also directed that the respondents shall not raise any
technical objection with regard to the nomination for appointment of
an attorney by the appellant, Sushant Sharma.
Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed and disposed of
in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.