Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Perry Kansagra, a Kenyan and British citizen, and the respondent, Smriti Madan Kansagra, an Indian citizen, married on 29 July 2007 in New Delhi. After marriage, the respondent moved to Nairobi, Kenya. A son, Aditya Vikram Kansagra, was born on 2 December 2009 in New Delhi. The family lived in Kenya until March 2012 when they traveled to New Delhi. In May 2012, the respondent filed a civil suit in the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction to prevent the appellant from removing Aditya from her custody. The appellant filed a guardianship petition in the Family Court, Saket, New Delhi. Visitation orders were passed, allowing the appellant to meet Aditya monthly. In April 2016, the appellant sought an in-chamber meeting with Aditya, which the Family Court allowed. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which referred the parties to mediation. During mediation, a child counsellor submitted a report on Aditya's behavior. The appellant sought to rely on this report, but the respondent objected on confidentiality grounds. The High Court, in its judgment dated 17 February 2017, held that the reports were not confidential and could be relied upon. The respondent filed a review petition, which was allowed by the High Court on 11 December 2017, reversing the earlier judgment. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that reports of mediator and child counsellor concerning the child's behavior and attitude are not confidential and can be used by the court to determine the best interest of the child. The Court emphasized the parens patriae jurisdiction and the importance of Section 12 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's review order and restored the original judgment dated 17 February 2017.
Headnote
A) Family Law - Child Custody - Confidentiality of Mediation Reports - Section 12 Family Courts Act, 1984 - Reports of mediator and child counsellor concerning behavior and attitude of child are not confidential and can be relied upon by court - Held that such reports are neutral evaluations of expert opinion to guide court in best interest of child, not confidential communications of parties (Paras 17-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether reports of mediator and child counsellor submitted during mediation proceedings are confidential and cannot be relied upon by the court in child custody matters.
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's review order dated 11.12.2017, and restored the original judgment dated 17.02.2017 of the High Court in MAT App. (FC) No.67 of 2016.
Law Points
- Confidentiality of mediation proceedings does not extend to reports of mediator or child counsellor concerning behavior and attitude of child
- Section 12 Family Courts Act
- 1984
- Parens patriae jurisdiction of court
- Best interest of child paramount
