How the real life events that inspired Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway unfolded before the Calcutta High Court

The Rani Mukherjee starrer Mrs Chatterjee vs Norway opened to mixed reactions in March this year. One review said that it fell short of being a compelling courtroom drama, given that the movie only got better when the legal arena shifted from Norway to India..The latter portion of the film is based on a case that was adjudicated by the Calcutta High Court back in 2013.An ordinary custody case on the face of it turned out to be a major international issue which brought out the aspect of how Indian children were forcefully taken into care by the Norwegian government. .Ten years since, the judge who heard the case, Justice Dipankar Datta, has been elevated to the Supreme Court and the case has made its way to the silver screen. .The film is inspired by the true events of a couple who get married and move to Norway for a better future. Owing to the fact that their two children were not being raised in accordance with Norwegian laws, the Child Welfare Services takes over the custody of the children. Later, the Indian government persuades the Norwegian authorities to return the children back to India, on an agreement that the children would stay with the younger brother of their father in Kolkata. When the children return to India, the mother (played by Rani Mukherjee) seeks their custody, based on agreement with her brother-in-law (respondent no. 4 in the case before the High Court). However, after the man reneges on his promise, the mother moves the High Court..In real life, the case was decided by Justice Datta, who ultimately granted the mother custody of her children..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 earlier passed by the High Court. .While refusing to initiate contempt proceedings against the mother, the Court noted how the case was of a “distressed mother trying to get back her children.”.“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. The conduct of the petitioner is a reflection of a distressed mother’s desperate bid to get her children back, in ignorance of the ramifications. In an appropriate case, law has to bend before justice. The situation warrants the petitioner to be pardoned for her acts, for, to my mind, there has been no deliberate attempt on her part to undermine the dignity, prestige and majesty of this Court,” the order stated..Further, Justice Datta noted that not granting the mother relief as prayed for "would amount to violence to the sense of justice.”.The Court also considered the position of the children's uncle, from whose custody they were removed. While granting him visitation rights, the Court said,"As an uncle, the respondent no. 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 the children.".As is often the case, the movie has taken a few creative liberties with the facts of the matter. For instance, while the movie showed a Norwegian lawyer appearing before the High Court, no such foreign lawyer appeared in the real-life case..For instance, while the movie showed a Norwegian lawyer appearing before the High Court, no such foreign lawyer appeared in the real-life case..The lawyer in question, played by actor Jim Sarbh, opposes the mother getting custody of the children, owing to the agreement between the Indian and Norwegian governments. In the film, the mother's lawyer (played by Balaji Gauri) makes an argument challenging the locus of the Norwegian lawyer to appear before the High Court. Later, it is shown that the judge makes an exception and allows him to appear.By the end of the movie, the Norwegian lawyer softens his stand against the mother and goes against Norway's position, submitting that it would be in the children's best interests if they were with their mother. .However, one truth the movie stuck to was how the children reacted when they met their mother in the presence of Justice Datta. “Justice Datta used to frequently meet such children in custody matters and he always kept a box of chocolates in his chamber so that the children would be comfortable. In this case, when the two children came inside, the girl ran to her mother and hugged her, while the boy went for the chocolate. Justice Datta had then looked on and smiled… and the movie stuck to this portion accurately,” a source told Bar & Bench. .[Read the Calcutta HC order]