JUDGMENT :

R.G. KETKAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Avasarmore, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dalvi, learned Counsel for the respondent at length.

2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Kolhapur below exhibit-6 in Petition D-4/2018. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application exhibit-6 made by the petitioner, Prasad Kulkarni, hereinafter referred to as 'Prasad', for interim custody of his son, Ishan. The learned trial Judge directed the respondent, Gauri Kulkarni, hereinafter referred to as 'Gauri' to handover son, Ishan on every Sunday at 9.00 a.m. till 5.00 p.m. to Prasad so that he would enjoy company of their son. The learned trial Judge also directed that whenever Prasad is present in the country during the vacation i.e. Diwali, Summer, Christmas, etc, he shall be entitled to interim custody of Ishan for the first half of vacation. Gauri shall positively handover custody of Ishan to Prasad before Counselor attached to the Family Court without fail. During the period of interim custody of Ishan with Prasad, he will take proper care of son Ishan so that his studies will not be affected.

3. Rule. Mr. Dalvi waives service for the respondent. Having regard to the narrow controversy raised in the Petition as also at the request and by consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the Petition is taken up for final hearing.

4. The marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.03.2003. Sometime in August 2003, parties shifted to U.K. After one year, Prasad and Gauri shifted to India and stayed in Sangli. Son Ishan is born on 03.02.2006. It is the case of Prasad that for the betterment of son Ishan, they decided to shift from Sangli to Pune along with grandparents of Ishan. In the same year, Ishan was admitted in Indus International, I.B.S. Board School. It is the case of Prasad that on 22.03.2018, Gauri forcibly took away Ishan to Kolhapur. Prasad, therefore, instituted Petition D-4/2018 in the Family Court at Kolhapur under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 for custody of Ishan. During the pendency of the proceedings, Prasad took out application exhibit-6 for interim custody on 14.08.2018. Gauri filed reply at exhibit-12 opposing the application. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application. It is against this order, present Petition is instituted.

5. In paragraph 25 of the impugned order, the learned trial Judge observed that during the course of interaction with Ishan, he found that he is very brilliant and is able to understand right or wrong. He also found Ishan has sufficient understanding. The learned trial Judge further went on to observe that during the meeting, it was found that Ishan is having certain apprehension in his mind about his father and his grandfather. He showed his desire to pursue further education at Kolhapur itself instead of any international school at Pune and informed the learned trial Judge that he has now adjusted himself at Vibgyor School, Kolhapur. Within 3-4 months, he has mingled with his other friends. Teachers and other students in the school are helpful as compared to the students and teachers at International School at Pune.

6. In paragraph 26, the learned trial Judge observed that after interacting with Ishan, who is more than 12 years of age, it became clear that he is reluctant to go with his father and also not willing to pursue education at Pune. The learned trial Judge further noted Prasad remains out of country for the period of six months. He will not be in a position to give any kind of attention during this period. Ishan wants to stay with his mother and does not want to go with his father. After ascertaining wishes of Ishan, the learned trial Judge rejected the application, as indicated earlier.

7. In grounds No. 5 and 6 of the Petition, Prasad asserted that the learned trial Judge did not ap