Ritika Sharan v. Sujoy Ghosh
Background
A married couple with a young son, Sattik, separated in 2016 amid allegations of domestic violence, with divorce proceedings pending in Bengaluru. The mother, employed by a multinational company, was relocated to Singapore for work in 2017 and sought to take the child with her; the father opposed this and obtained a Family Court order restraining the child from being taken out of Bengaluru, after which the child lived with the mother's parents in Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the mother's challenge to that restraint order, and she appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court, exercising its special power under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice, held that the child's welfare was paramount and that rigid adherence to procedural technicalities (such as whether the mother had formally challenged every lower-court order) should not stand in the way of that welfare. Noting that the child had lived with the mother since birth, had expressed a wish to live with her, and would otherwise lose a year of schooling, the Court allowed the mother to take the child to Singapore. It balanced this against the father's rights by ordering detailed visitation arrangements, regular video calls, in-person access during vacations, mandatory visits to India twice a year, and required the mother to furnish a formal undertaking not to relocate the child elsewhere without the Court's permission.
Lesson Learnt
In child custody matters, Indian courts prioritize the child's actual welfare and lived circumstances over rigid procedural formality, and will use constitutional powers to craft practical, detailed arrangements (like structured visitation) rather than simply picking one parent's position over the other's.