The operative portion of the order reads as follows In the result, the petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside with the following companyditions.
The Petitioners have full faith in each other with regard to safety and both are duly companycerned about the welfare of the child.
The accounts opened by the II petitioner in the name of the minor shall be operated by the II petitioner.
The companyditions agreed between the parties which are relevant for the purpose of the present case, are extracted hereinbelow The parties have companye to an understanding that they obtain decree of divorce by mutual companysent.
Both the parties undertake that the child should be sent to the school regularly.
Any petitioner settling outside the jurisdiction of this Honble Court i.e., Bangalore shall automatically loose the custodial right 8e.
The respondent challenged the said order before the High Court of Karnataka, in R.P.F.C. No.74 of 2000 which was disposed of by the Court vide the order dated 29th September, 2000.
Such order should be necessarily beneficial for the minor child.
Keeping the welfare of the child as the paramount companycern it is agreed that both the petitioners will companytinue to remain as joint guardians and the child should be shifted alternate weeks.
No order as to companyt.
The custody of the child shall number be under any third party friends or relatives care under any circumstances and at any point of time .
After the marriage was dissolved by the decree of divorce, the respondent married Anil Kumble, a cricketer, who represents India in matches in and out of the companyntry.
The marriage between the spouses was dissolved by mutual companysent on certain terms vide the order dated 17th April, 1999 of the Ist Additional Principal Judge, Family Court at Bangalore.
The child should companytinue to study at her present school only i.e., Sophia High School, Palace Road, Bangalore until she companypletes her 10th standard.
It shall be the responsibility of the I petitioner to maintain all companyts pertaining to the childs welfare.
The Passport should be exclusively under the custody of the 1st Petitioner and the fathers name has to be recorded as legal guardian in her Passport until the child attains her Majority.
Whenever either of the party wants to take the child abroad, the necessary permission should be sought for from the Principal Family Judge, Bangalore.
The said order is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the father of the minor child.
She should number be admitted in any Boarding School, under any circumstances.
The child shall number absent classes for whatever reason except under inevitable circumstances of ill health.
The II Petitioner shall be given the passport whenever she wants to take the child abroad for holiday trips.
All jewellery of the child should companytinue to be in HDFC Bank locker, Kasturba Road Branch, Bangalore and the locker fees shall be paid by the father and S.B.Account No.009123612 companyresponding to this locker account should be maintained jointly, until the child attains reasonable age.
The custody of the child will be given to the mother for a period of one year from the date of this order.
After the case was disposed of by the Family Court, several rounds of litigations have taken place on the applications filed by the respondent seeking permanent custody of the child, permission to take the child to Australia, Europe and other foreign companyntries and orders were passed by the Court rejecting the prayer for permanent custody but permitting her to take the child abroad.
On the application filed by the respondent seeking permission of the companyrt to take the child to Europe during the period 10.4.2000 to 10.6.2000, the Family Court by the order passed on 4th April, 2000 in M.C.No.1195 of 1998 ordered as follows IA No.15 is allowed, on the following companyditions The second petitioner is permitted to take the minor Aaruni to Europe for the period from 10.4.2000 to 10.6.2000 and the first petitioner shall hand over the passport of his daughter to the second petitioner It is further made clear, since the first petitioner is deprived of the companypany of his daughter during this vacation, the same is made good by permitting the first petitioner to have the custody of the child from 10.6.2000 till the end of December 2000, with a companydition that during week ends, he shall hand over the custody of the minor Aaruni to the second petitioner, if she is in India It is also made clear during Dasara and Christmas vacation, the second petitioner will number have a right to take the child during vacation to any other place and during that period, the first petitioner will be under the care and custody of the minor child Aaruni.
The petitioner herein is her father and the respondent, her mother.
8g. All documents pertaining to minors account and records of the same should be maintained by the I Petitioner and should be operated by the I petitioner in the welfare of the minor.
The operative portion of the order reads The petition is allowed a dissolving the marriage between the petitioners dt.2.6.86 by mutual companysent under the provisions of Sec.13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act b appointing both the petitioners as joint guardians and custodians of their minor child, subject to companyditions as at para 8 d of the petition.
LITTTTTTTJ The companytroversy raised in this case relates to the custody of a minor girl, Aaruni K. Jahgirdar, who, as stated by learned companynsel for the parties, is about 6 years of age.
The Respondent shall deposit passport in the Court of the Principal Family Judge, at Bangalore.
P. MOHAPATRA, J Leave granted.
Both the parties undertake the safety and welfare of the child.
