JUDGMENT

A.S. Oka, J. - As per the administrative order of the Hon''ble the Chief Justice, these Appeals are specially assigned to the Bench presided over by one of us.

2. This is a very unfortunate litigation which arises out of a matrimonial dispute. The marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5th February 2005. A female child was born from the said wedlock on 18th May 2007. The record reveals that from the day on which the child became 40 days old, the husband and wife are residing separately. The custody of the child is with the mother. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, following three proceedings were decided:. (i) Petition No.D30 of 2008 filed by the husband against the wife for grant of custody of the child. (ii) petition No.A2250 of 2009 was filed by the wife for a decree of judicial separation under section 10 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and (iii) Petition No.2485 of 2009 filed by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights.

3. By the impugned Judgment dated 28th April 2015, the learned Judge of the Family Court, Mumbai dismissed the petition for judicial separation filed by the wife and decreed the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband. The petition for custody of the minor child filed by the husband was disposed of by passing the following order:

"3 The petitioner shall give access of minor daughter Udantika to the respondent on every alternate Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. and half of the access on each and every school vacation i.e Christmas vacation, Summer vacation, Diwali vacation etc. The parties shall decide the first half or second half as per their convenience and the convenience of child. On the day of birthday of child, the respondent is entitled to get access from 9.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. only and petitioner is entitled to keep the child in her custody after 2.00 p.m.;

4. The respondent shall collect the child from the garden situated nearby the house of petitioner for access and drop the child at the same place. At the same time, it is directed to the parties to take care of mental and physical health of the child. The access is given independently.;

5. The petition bearing No.D30/ 2008 is allowed to the extent of access only. The prayer of respondent for grant of custody is hereby rejected.;

6 The petitioner is entitled to retain the custody of minor daughter Udantika.;

7 The parties to bear their own costs.;

8 Decree be drawn accordingly."

4. The petitioner referred above is the wife and the respondent referred above is the husband. Appeal No.114 of 2015 has been preferred by the father for challenging that part of the impugned Judgment and Decree by which his prayer for permanent custody of the child was rejected. Appeal No.99 of 2015 is preferred by the wife for challenging the order of access. We must note here that the wife had preferred FCA No.10 of 2015 for challenging the impugned Decree to the extent of the dismissal of prayer for grant of judicial separation and FCA 108 of 2015 was filed by her for challenging the impugned Decree to the extent to which the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by the husband was decreed. However, the said two appeals have been withdrawn by the wife.

5. Before we deal with the merits of the case, we must note here that various Division Benches tried to bring about an amicable settlement of the dispute. On many occasions, the parties and the child were interviewed by the Benches. The orders passed from time to time will show that the husband and wife were referred to Dr.Harish Shetty, a Senior Psychiatrist for counselling. The reports filed on record will indicate that Dr.Shetty took initiative and tried his level best to resolve the issue of custody by making attempts to allow the husband to meet the child. Monitored access was granted in the presence of Dr.Shetty or one of his professional colleagues. It is true that Dr.Shetty and his colleagues have made sincere efforts to find a solution in th