The welfare of the minor child is paramount in deciding custody, and instances of child abuse necessitate a competent Child Psychologist's evaluation to ascertain the cause of the child's trauma and reluctance to join the mother.

A.M. BADAR, J.

1. By this petition, petitioner-father of six and half years old female child Janhavi is challenging the order dated 25th April 2017 passed by the learned Family Court, Bandra in Petition No. D-77 of 2012 filed by the respondent herein-mother of the female child named Janhavi.

2. The impugned order dated 25th April 2017 is directing the petitioner-father to give access to the respondent-mother during summer vacation for the period from 29th May 2017 to 3rd June 2017 by taking minor female child Janhavi from the Marriage Counselor attached to the Family Court, on 29th May 2017.

3. Heard the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner-father of Ms. Janhavi. She argued that Ms. Janhavi is taking education in IInd standard. It is submitted that marriage between the parties was solemnized in the year 2007 and Janhavi was born out of this wedlock in the year 2010. The learned Advocate for the petitioner-father further argued that finally on 23/03/2012, respondent-mother deserted the petitioner-father so also Ms. Janhavi, which has resulted in filing of the petition for divorce as also for permanent custody by the petitioner-father before the Family Court. It is further argued that during pendency of this petition, access was regularly given and Ms. Janhavi was used to be given in custody of the respondent-mother from time to time as per agreed terms between the parties. It is submitted that Ms. Janhavi used to be with her mother on first and third Saturday, so also in winter and summer vacation.

4. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner-father on 28th January 2017 at the premises of residence of the petitioner, Ms. Janhavi was traumatized by the respondent-mother. She was then medically examined by the petitioner on 28th January 2017 itself and she was found to have suffered injuries. Reliance is placed on affidavit on record page 169 to demonstrate how Ms. Janhavi came to be injured at the hands of the respondent-mother. It is further argued that the same incident came to be repeated on 18th February 2017 also and, therefore, the petitioner-father got his minor daughter Janhavi medically examined. My attention is drawn to injury certificate at page 162 and 180 of the record apart from pleadings in affidavit. With this, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the application for recall of access filed by the petitioner ought to have been granted by the leaned Family Court instead of granting access to the respondent-mother in the summer vacation. It is further argued that though the learned Judge of the Family Court has accepted the contention of the petitioner-father that Ms. Janhavi needs to be taken to Child Psychologist for her psychological evaluation in order to ascertain the reason of her refusal to join company of her mother, the learned Judge erred in appointing Dr. Harish Shetty for this purpose. It is pointed out that Dr. Harish Shetty is a qualified Child Psychiatric and not the Child Psychologist. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further submitted a list of expert Child Psychologists and contended that the learned Judge of the Family Court ought to have appointed some Child Psychologist for psychological evaluation of Ms. Janhavi in order to ascertain why she is not ready to go with her mother during the period of access. It is further argued that granting access for summer vacation without waiting for report of the Child Psychologist is totally contrary to the interest of the minor female child.

5. The documents tendered by the learned Advocate for the petitioner during the arguments i.e. Bio-Data of Dr. Harish Shetty and list of Expert Child Psychologists are taken on record.

6. I have also heard the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent-mother of minor female child Ms. Janhavi. He drew my attention to the modified consent terms on record page 167 and contended that this modification in the consent terms was done on 16th February 2017.