Mrs Chatterjee Vs Norway

 

 

 

THE film “Mrs Chatterjee v. Norway” is based on a real life story in which the issue involved was custody of children and the same was adjudicated in Calcutta High Court and decided on January 10, 2013 in favour of the mother of the children by Justice Dipankar Datta, who later on adorned the office of the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court and at present is a Judge at the Supreme Court of India, New Delhi. An ordinary custody case on the face of it turned out to be a major international legal controversy, which brought to the fore the aspect of how Indian Children were forcefully taken into care by the Norwegian Government. In the last ten years, while the concerned Judge has been elevated as a Supreme Court Judge and the case has been presented to the public in the form of a film wherein accomplished actor Rani Mukherjee has played the role of ‘mother’ in the story. The film is inspired by the true events in a couple’s life, who got married and moved to Norway for a better future. Owing to the fact that due to Norwegian laws relating to care of children their two children could not stay with them and stayed with the younger brother of their father in Kolkata under an agreement of March 23, 2012 for future care of the children, between the couple and the respondent-4, younger brother, after the children came back to India on April 24, 2012 with their uncle. For a period in excess of eight months, they lived with him and under his care.

 

The children were supposed to live with their uncle as long as they were minors. Besides the agreement, the mother Anurupa Bhattacharya was assured by her geo-scientist husband and his younger brother, that immediately on her return to India, the children would be placed in her care and custody. However, the respondent did not fulfill his assurance, while it was necessary for the children’s overall growth and development, that they should be immediately placed in her care and custody. In response to the application moved by the mother, the Child Welfare Committee constituted in terms of the Juvenile Justice (care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 had passed an interim order on November 8, 2012, wherein on the basis of certain findings recorded therein, it has been observed by the Committee that the respondent-uncle was not fit to exercise control over the children and they do not also currently have any guardian fit to exercise control over them; hence there is need of care and protection in terms of the Act. The Committee had directed that these two children be removed from the foster care of their uncle pending further orders and they be restored to the petitioner-mother. Since this order was not implemented by the respondent-uncle, the mother approached the Committee once again. She has alleged that despite having power to issue search warrant the Committee did not do so with the result that its interim order remained unimplemented. The petitioner filed the writ petition on December 18, 2012 and had prayed for implementing the order passed by the Committee. Justice Datta (as he was then) declined to issue ex-parte interim order on the ground that the situation was not such so as to warrant passing of such an order.

 

Though by her conduct, the mother could have been proceeded against in contempt of the Court, the Judge instead, observed that this is a case, which requires to be dealt with compassion and empathy. Two children of tender age had been separated from their mother because she had been bringing them up in a manner contrary to the laws of a foreign country. In the opinion of the HC , the compelling circumstances arising from the Court’s concern for the children makes it necessary to direct that the petitioner shall continue to take care of them until further orders are passed on the writ petition or effect of the order of the Committee of November 8, 2012 is stayed by a competent forum. According to the HC, as an uncle, respondent-4 must be held to have discharged his responsibility in the manner, the situation required. Although it might result in considerable pain for him to be separated from the children, his interest must yield for the better interest of children. However, the HC directed that the respondent- uncle shall be entitled to visit the children at every Saturday at 3 pm in the chamber of the Government Pleader, at least for two hours, subject to the uncle offering only chocolates by way of gift. The HC had noted in its judgement that the Respondent-Uncle, who is a doctor, had informed the HC that the boy Abhigyan was not an absolutely normal child and requires constant care and affection.

 

The Court had directed in his best interest that he should be medically checked up by a child psychiatrist and to make report of such doctor available in reply affidavit that the petitioner would file countering the allegations in affidavit in Opposition by the respondent –uncle. In his January 10, 2013 order, Justice Datta took note of how the mother, in a desperate attempt to regain custody of her children, called the Police on her brother-in-law, in violation of orders passed by the HC earlier. According to the HC, this conduct by the distressed mother was in ignorance of the ramifications. In an appropriate case, law has to bend before justice. The situation warrants the petitioner-mother to be pardoned for her acts, for, to my (Court’s) mind there had been no deliberate attempt on her part to undermine the dignity, prestige and majesty of the High Court. Further, Justice Datta noted that not granting relief to mother as prayed for would amount to “violation of sense of justice.” The High Court also considered the position of the children’s uncle from whose custody they were removed. While granting visitation rights, the court said, “As an uncle, the respondent-4 must be held to have discharged his responsibility in the manner, the situation required.”