This judgment is a distinguishing Judgment so far as PAS (parental alienation syndrome which is addendum clinical subject matter even in yet to publish DSM - V bible for psychiatrists worldwide) is concerned since my awareness till date of SC not yet recognizing PAS inspite of Chennai HC in recent past giving judgment no. of times on effects of PAS on alienated children of warring couples. Hence I find this Judgment a path breaking Judgment from
“For a boy so young in years, these and other expressions suggesting a deep rooted dislike for the father could arise only because of a constant hammering of negative feeling in him against his father. This approach and attitude on the part of the appellant or her parents can hardly be appreciated. What the appellant ought to appreciate is that feeding the minor with such dislike and despire for his father does not serve his interest or his growth as a normal child. It is important that the minor has his father's care and guidance, at this formative and impressionable stage of his life. Nor can the role of the father in his upbringing and grooming to face the realities of life be undermined. It is in that view important for the child's healthy growth that we grant to the father visitation rights; that will enable the two to stay in touch and share moments of joy, learning and happiness with each other. Since the respondent is living in another continent such contact cannot be for obvious reasons as frequent as it may have been if they were in the same city. But the forbidding distance that separates the two would get reduced thanks to the modern technology in telecommunications. The appellant has been according to the respondent persistently preventing even telephonic contact between the father and the son. May be the son has been so poisoned against him that he does not evince any interest in the father. Be that as it may telephonic contact shall not be prevented by the appellant for any reason whatsoever and shall be encouraged at all reasonable time. Video conferencing may also be possible between the two which too shall not only be permitted but encouraged by the appellant.
Besides, the father shall be free to visit the minor in
time of the year and meet him for two hours on a daily basis,
unhindered by any impediment from the mother or her parents or
anyone else for that matter. The place where the meeting can take
place shall be indicated by the trial Court after verifying the
convenience of both the parties in this regard. The trial Court shall
pass necessary orders in this regard without delay and without
permitting any dilatory tactics in the matter.”
ITEM No. 1A Court No. 8 SECTION XIV/II
(For Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4435 OF 2011 @ SLP (C) No. 9220 of 2010
RUCHI MAJOO Appellant (s)
VERSUS
SANJEEV MAJOO Respondent (s)
With Crl. A. No. 1184/2011 @ SLP(Crl.) No. 10362 of 2010
Date : 13/05/2011
These Petitions were called on for judgment today.
For Appellant (s) Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Kumar, Adv.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.
Civil Appeal No. 4435 of 2011
(arising out of SLP(C) No. 9220 of 2010:
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of signed judgment.
Criminal Appeal No. 1184 of 2011
(arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10362 of 2010)
Leave granted.
The appeal is dismissed in terms of signed
judgment.
(Pardeep Kumar) (Shashi Bala Vij)
Court Master Assistant Registrar
Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file.
Full text Judgment source:
https://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/dc%20922010p.txt
Download attach PDF full text of Judgment
PS: It is going to be reported soon in appropriate Reporter as this Judgment came 2-3 days ago.
