Supreme Court Directs Continued Access Between Father and Child, Appoints Commissioner to Oversee CCTV Installation

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard an appeal by a father who contended that he was being denied interaction with his child; the matter arose from an SLP (Crl.) challenging an impugned judgment dated 20.09.2024 and referencing a Court Commissioner’s report. Leave was granted and the Court addressed interim directions previously issued on 25.10.2024 concerning custody-access, protection of the child’s assets and restrictions on removal from the country.

The Court allowed the appeal and directed that the interim order dated 25.10.2024 continue to operate. It held that the petitioner would be allowed to “interact and be with his son” while the child would not be permitted to be taken out of the country. The Court also directed that other persons who had earlier met and interacted with the child would be permitted to continue doing so, and that the assets belonging to the child “will not be alienated, transferred or encumbered till the next date of hearing.” To prevent any untoward incident, the Court appointed Mr. Chritarth Palli, learned Advocate-on-Record present in Court, as a Court Commissioner to oversee and ensure installation of CCTV cameras with video-recording facility for 96 hours at locations he designated in the house; installation expenses were to be borne by respondent No. 3, Kalindi Hamal, while Mr. Palli’s lodging, boarding and a fee of ₹1,00,000 were to be paid by the appellant, Sushant Sharma. The Court clarified that it had not examined the applicability of the National Trust Act, 1999, and that its observations were tentative. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The appeal was allowed and disposed of in the terms recorded.

Background: The dispute stemmed from a petition by Sushant Sharma alleging denial of access to his child (name suppressed). An earlier order of this Court dated 25.10.2024 had permitted the petitioner to meet the child, prohibited removal of the child from the country, allowed continued interaction by other persons, and restrained alienation of the child’s assets pending further hearing. The impugned judgment had considered a report by a Court Commissioner who had interacted with the child. After the 25.10.2024 order, the parties filed applications containing allegations and counter-allegations; respondent No. 4, Damini Goswamy, submitted that she had not been permitted to meet the child and the Court observed that she may be permitted to do so.

The Court noted that the parties had moved appropriate fora under guardianship legislation — in one part of the record under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 2016, and in another part under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 — and that civil suits concerning assets were pending between the parties. The Court requested the relevant Guardianship Court to take up proceedings expeditiously and observed that its interim directions were tentative and prima facie. As recorded by the Court: "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." The Court further clarified that its directions would not preclude any jurisdictional tribunal from passing orders in accordance with law and directed that respondents should not raise technical objections to the nomination for appointment of an attorney by the appellant. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14618 of 2024) Case Title: Sushant Sharma v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]