The welfare of the children is the paramount consideration in custody matters, and the court must consider the best interest of the children when making decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.

1. The present four revisional applications, along with the connected application for bringing on record additional documents, are taken up together for hearing due to identity of the disputes involved and since all arise from the same proceeding.

2. The petitioner-father filed an application under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1890 Act") for custody of his two children, being Siddhartha Aupa Zalba, born on November 12, 2006 (aged about 13 years now) and daughter Ikantika Margarita, born on October 10, 2011, (aged about 8 years now). In the said proceeding, several interlocutory applications were filed by the father.

3. C.O. No. 1686 of 2019 and the connected supplementary affidavit, filed by the petitioner-father, arise out of Order No. 56 dated February 16, 2019 passed in the said proceeding under Section 25 of the 1890 Act, bearing Act VIII Case No. 88 of 2017. By the said order, the trial court disposed of three applications filed by the petitioner, respectively dated September 20, 2018, January 2, 2019 and January 7, 2019, all under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") by the petitioner-father, alleging violation of an interim order of visitation of the children by the opposite party-mother.

4. The trial court, while rejecting such applications, was of the opinion that evidence was to be taken for disposing of the said applications, which was not possible at that stage, but found that there was apparently some disturbance regarding the visitations and therefore, the parties were directed to carry on visitation by maintaining peace and tranquility at the place of visitation. The opposite party-mother was directed by the trial court to cooperate in the visitation process properly without creating disturbance or putting any embargo during the visitation process as per the direction incorporated in Order No. 8 dated September 18, 2017, Order No. 9 dated October 23, 2017, Order No. 17 dated December 21, 2017 and Order No. 27 dated June 18, 2018.

5. An advocate, namely, Soma De was appointed as 'supervisor', to supervise the entire visitation process on each of the dates of visitation till the disposal of the main proceeding. The fees of the said Advocate Commissioner was fixed at Rs. 1,000/- per visitation, to be borne by both sides equally.

6. C.O. No. 1692 of 2019 has been filed against Order No. 69 dated April 30, 2019 whereby, inter alia, an application for interim custody filed by the petitioner-father under Section 12 of the 1890 Act was disposed of by holding that it was not possible to uphold the allegations of the petitioner regarding the habits and behaviour of the opposite party-mother without evidence at that stage and therefore custody of the children could not be taken away from the opposite party-mother.

7. The trial Judge further held that the minors had been examined separately by the court and it appeared that they were quite comfortable at that stage to stay with the mother at her present residence at Kolkata.

8. The trial Judge further held that the cases cited by the petitioner support the petitioner's contention but could be considered only at the stage of final disposal of the Act VIII case.

9. As such, the prayer of the petitioner for the interim custody of Siddhartha and Ikantika was rejected. However, visitation of the children was granted to the father every Sunday from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. The father was permitted to take photographs, hand over gifts to the children and take them out during such visitation hours. The father was further permitted to visit the children on their birthdays and during Christmas at the mother's residence. The trial court went so far as to permit the children to be taken to Shantiniketan, where the petitioner resides, for five days during the first week of the summer vacations of the children.

10. By the same impugned order dated April 30, 2019, an appl