Shweta
Tiwari's
ex-husband
Abhinav
Kohli
had
apparently
filed
a
habeas
corpus
case
against
the
actress
alleging
that
she
kept
him
away
from
his
son.
He
had
demanded
Reyaansh's
custody
citing
Shweta
is
a
busy
actress,
and
hence,
she
does
not
have
enough
time
for
Reyaansh.
However,
as
per
TOI
report,
the
court
dismissed
the
petition
and
ordered
in
favour
of
Shweta,
while
granting
Abhinav
visitation
rights
for
a
brief
period.
Abhinav
was
allowed
to
meet
Reyaansh
for
two
hours
in
a
week
in
their
building
premise,
in
the
presence
of
family
members.
Regarding
the
decision,
Shweta
was
happy
and
said
that
this
is
what
she
wanted.
She
also
revealed
how
Abhinav
was
following
her
everywhere
since
last
two
years
and
created
ruckus.
She
was
quoted
by
the
leading
daily
as
saying,
"This
is
what
I
wanted
and
I
am
honestly
satisfied
with
the
judgement.
Abhinav
would
follow
me
everywhere
I
went
in
the
last
two
years.
He
would
end
up
in
Delhi
or
Pune
or
wherever
I
travelled
with
Reyansh
for
my
shows
and
create
a
ruckus.
It
was
mentally
exhausting
for
both,
me
and
my
child.
He
would
not
stop
at
that
and
would
create
a
scene
and
end
up
at
my
doorstep
anytime."
She
revealed
that
she
never
stopped
Reyansh
and
Abhinav
from
talking
but
wrong
allegations
were
made
on
her.
She
added
that
as
per
the
previous
court
order,
he
was
only
supposed
to
speak
to
Reyaansh
on
a
video
call
for
only
half
an
hour,
but
she
never
stopped
them
from
talking
as
she
understood,
but
the
same
person
painted
her
as
a
bad
mother,
who
doesn't
care
and
is
neglecting
her
child's
health.
She
further
added
that
she
work
for
family
to
give
them
a
good
lifestyle
and
asked
what's
wrong
in
it!
She
said
that
she
is
glad
that
court
dismissed
the
allegations.
Shweta
said,
"He
alleged
that
I
kidnapped
Reyansh
and
kept
him
away
from
him,
when
I
have
proof
that
in
all
cases,
he
was
aware
of
Reyansh's
whereabouts
all
the
time.
Even
during
Khatron
Ke
Khiladi
shoot,
he
tried
to
create
yet
another
scene
despite
being
fully
aware
of
Reyansh's
stay."
On
the
other
hand,
as
per
the
report,
the
court
in
its
judgement
said,
"There
was
no
material,
which
prima
facie
indicates
that
the
custody
of
the
child
with
the
mother
was
detrimental
to
his
welfare
and
development.
At
such
a
tender
age,
a
child
needs
the
company
of
the
mother
and
hence
keeping
him
in
her
custody
appears
more
natural
and
conducive
for
the
development
of
the
child."
The
court
noted,
"In
our
view,
the
issue
of
welfare
of
the
minor
cannot
be
determined
on
the
sole
parameter
of
the
work
commitment
of
one
parent
and
the
availability
of
ample
time
with
another.
The
fact
that
respondent
No
2
is
a
busy
actor,
cannot
be
contested
to
unfavourably
judge
her
suitability
to
have
the
custody
of
the
child."