Dr. Amit Kumar v. Dr. Sonila & Ors.
Background
Dr. Amit Kumar and Dr. Sonila, both CRPF doctors, divorced by mutual consent in 2016, agreeing that their son and daughter would live with the father, who would also bear major expenses, while the mother would contribute to the daughter's education costs. A dispute arose when the father asked the mother to pay her agreed share and she instead sought custody of the children, later even filing a civil suit to have the divorce declared void on grounds of coercion. The Bombay High Court, after interviewing the children, awarded custody to the mother.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court found that the original custody arrangement was a conscious decision both well-educated parties freely made after the mandatory six-month "cooling-off" period for mutual divorce, and could not be lightly dismissed as coerced years later. It noted the mother had not contributed her agreed share for the daughter while sending money to a male colleague, and concluded her custody claim was really a reaction to being asked to pay up, not a genuine welfare concern. The Court held the High Court gave undue weight to the children's preference expressed in an informal interview, over-looking that children would naturally prefer a parent to a boarding school at that moment. It restored custody to the father as per the original consent decree, directing the mother to return the children within 30 days, while allowing continuity in their current school until the end of the academic session.
Lesson Learnt
Terms freely and knowingly agreed in a mutual-consent divorce decree, especially after the mandatory reflection period, carry real legal weight and will not be easily reopened simply because one party has a change of heart; courts look past surface impressions to the genuine, long-term welfare of the children involved.