New Delhi:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the four-year-old son of Bengaluru techie Atul Subhash, who tragically died by suicide in December, will remain in the custody of his mother, Nikita Singhania. This decision came after the court heard a plea by Atul Subhash’s mother, Anju Devi, seeking custody of her grandson.
The bench, consisting of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice SC Sharma, made the ruling after speaking to the child via video link. The hearing was part of a habeas corpus petition filed by Anju Devi, who sought her grandson’s return to her care. The court had previously ordered the child to be produced before it during the hearing.
The proceedings began with the petitioner’s request for more time to file an affidavit, but this was swiftly denied by Justice Nagarathna. She emphasized that this was a habeas corpus petition, and the priority was to see the child. A video link was established, and the child appeared on screen after a brief 45-minute recess.
During the hearing, it was revealed that Nikita Singhania had withdrawn the child from a boarding school in Faridabad, Haryana, and was planning to bring him to Bengaluru to fulfill bail conditions. Singhania and her family, who are facing charges of abetting Atul Subhash’s suicide, were granted bail after their arrests.
The case began after Atul Subhash’s death on December 9, which he attributed to harassment from his wife and her family. His detailed suicide note and video claimed that his in-laws had filed false cases against him and his family, demanding a large sum of money.
Following Atul’s death, his mother Anju Devi approached the Supreme Court for custody of her grandson, amid the mystery surrounding the child’s whereabouts. It was initially unclear where the boy was, as Singhania had stated he was staying with her uncle, Sushil Singhania, who later denied knowledge of the child’s location. In response, the court directed the authorities in Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana to investigate the matter and provide clarity.
Justice Nagarathna remarked that the child barely knew his grandmother, acknowledging that custody issues would need to be addressed by a lower court in the future. Despite the challenges, the court ruled that the child would remain with his mother, Nikita Singhania. The case has drawn attention to the complicated intersection of family law, custody battles, and the tragic consequences of domestic disputes.