CM APP No. 11009 of 2015 (exemption from filing clear copies)

1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 78 of 2015 & CM APP No. 11008 of 2015

3. This appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the order dated 5th June 2015 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Saket.

4. The brief background to this appeal is that there were three applications filed by the Appellant father in the Family court which were decided by the Family Court on 15th April 2015. The first application sought a direction to the Respondent mother to apprise the Appellant father of the health, education, daily activities and overall development etc. of the two minor children. While deciding the said application by the said order, the learned Family Judge issued certain directions including those concerning the visitation rights of the father and his presence at parent teacher meetings of the school where the children are studying.

5. The second application was for modification of an earlier order dated 15th April 2014 passed by the Family Court so that “50% of the vacations of the children during summer break may be granted to the applicant and also call the children for interview in order to determine their wishes”. As far as this application is concerned, the Family Court in its order dated 15th April 2015 observed that children had interacted with the predecessor court and expressed their desire which was recorded in the order dated 15th April 2014. The Family Court was of the view that interacting with the children again would not be desirable or in their interest. Consequently, the prayer for modification of the earlier order dated 15th April 2014 was declined.

6. The third application was for appointment of a psychologist/counsellor to determine the “psychological situation” of the children. The Family Court was of the view that the children should be allowed to grow naturally with time and “should not be allowed to face rigmaroles of facing one psychologist or the other”. The said prayer was also, therefore, declined.

7. Aggrieved by the above order dated 15th April 2015, the Appellant filed MAT APP (FC) No. 66 of 2015 which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court [of which one of us (I.S. Mehta, J.) was part] on 25th May 2015. The said order reads as under:

“By this appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 15.04.2015 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Courts, Saket, New Delhi.

After some arguments, both the learned counsel for the parties, on instructions from their receptive clients present in Court, have agreed for the production of children before the learned Family Court on 01.06.2015 so that the learned Family Court can have a fresh interaction with the children so as to ascertain their views.

We accordingly direct the respondent to produce the children before the learned Family Court on 01.06.2015 and on that date the learned Family Court shall interact with the children to ascertain their views.

We also direct that if after interacting with the children, the Court finds that any modification or variation in the impugned order is required, then the Court will pass a fresh order to vary or modify the order dated 15.04.2015 and if the Court is satisfied that no modification or variation in the order is required, then it is left to the discretion of the learned Family Court.

With the above observation, the present appeal is disposed of.

Dasti.”

8. Pursuant to the above order, the learned Family Judge interacted with the children in order to ascertain their views. In the impugned order dated 5th June 2015, the learned Family Judge inter alia noted:

“During interaction, the children have expressed their desire to spend 50% of the vacations with their father. They were absolutely clear in their thinking and choice taken by them”.

9. Consequently, the Principal Ju