The Division bench comprising justices Sidharth Mridul and Talwant Singh appointed Swati Shah as child counsellor and directed her to interact with the child. She has been directed to file a report after counselling master Sameer Gupta.
The bench directed the child counsellor to interact with the child in the conciliation and mediation centre at the High court today at 3 PM.
Akhilesh Kumar Gupta undertook to the court that he will take his 3-year-old son to a conciliation centre for the said purpose today at 3 PM and on all other dates as may be required by the child counsellor, the bench ordered.
The bench said that having heard the counsels for the parties and with their consent and in particular, in view of the paramount well-being and interest of master Sameer Gupta.
” It is incumbent upon us to ensure that he has provided proper and professional counselling in order to cop effectively with congenial environment and trauma experienced by him,” the bench observed.
We, therefore, appoint Swati Shah, the child counsellor to provide counselling to master Sameer Gupta as it is considered necessary to secure his emotional comfort and well-being.
Counsellor also requests to interact with the master Sameer independently as well as with the mother sister and father jointly.
File a report on this behalf on or before the next date of hearing, the bench directed.
Further, she is requested that Sameer is enabled to interact with his mother and sister for as long as is considered appropriate during the counselling sessions, the court said. Renotify on the following Friday, the court ordered.
” Shah, we allowed you as long as possible as frequently to counsel the child. The Child is away for eight months. We would meet to analyse the periodic report,” the bench further observed.
Advocate Sravan Kumar submitted that the court may consider increasing the time of interaction with the mother.
The Court said, “we will consider.”
The counsel also made a request to allow the mother to show the Ukrainian cartoon to Master Sameer which he used to see.
The bench pulled up the counsel and said, “You are missing the woods for the trees.”
He again made a request the petitioner may be allowed to play some recordings of the songs.
“Let the counsellor determine all the same,” the bench said.
Yesterday, the court rejected the necessity of attending the hearing by the official from the Ukrainian government.
The court said that we don’t want anyone from the Ukrainian government to go to the hearing as counsel and interpreter are there. Their presence is not necessary, inform them, it had added.
During the hearing, the interpreter Lydia for the petitioner submitted that She is from Ukraine to take the child back. He has been brought here unauthorisedly by the respondent.
She submitted, please Understand her feelings as a mother. She would never take the child to the city in view of the safety of the child.
The bench said that for this court welfare of the child is most important. Interpersonal relationships between the parties are not the concern of this court.
“Our concern is to secure the welfare of the child. We understand the sentiments,” the bench said.
We examine this case from the standpoint of the child. You will get the opportunity, this is not the time right now.
Once we have a report, we will analyse where Sameer’s welfare lies, the bench said.
Earlier, The interpreter had submitted that the custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.
The court asked, “Was that order passed Ex parte?” The counsel for the petitioner said that during the early hearing the father had appeared but later he did not.
You want to enforce an order of the foreign court. There is a procedure to do that, the court said.
The Delhi High Court on November 14 was informed that the Delhi police has traced the Ex husband of a Ukrainian woman and her 3-year-old son.
The High Court on November 2 issued notice to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of External Affairs and Delhi police on a habeas corpus plea moved by a Ukrainian woman to locate her 3-year-old son.
The petitioner had told the bench that she is a divorcee and the custody of her son was granted to her in 2021 by a Ukrainian Court. The man took their son away without informing her on the basis of fabricated documents.