Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner father of the minor child Yudhveer aged about 5 years, challenging the order dated 16.12.2017 passed by the Family Court in Civil Misc. Application No.73 of 2017, whereby the Family Court has rejected his application Exh.6, seeking interim custody of the child, and directed him to hand over the custody of Yudhveer to the respondent pursuant to her application Exh.14, till the final disposal of the main Civil Misc. Application.

2. The conspectus of the matter is that the matrimonial cord between the petitioner and the respondent was tied on 13.12.2007 as per the Hindu rites and rituals at Village Vadod. Out of the said wedlock the parties were blessed with the son named Yudhveer, who was born on 28.7.2012. However, due to the matrimonial discord and regular frictions between the parties, the respondent left her matrimonial home some time in May 2017 to stay with her parents at Vadodara, taking her son Yudhveer along with her. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not allowed to meet his son by the respondent, though desperate attempts were made by him. The petitioner, therefore, preferred an application under Section 7, 25, and 28 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of the person of his son Yudhveer. The said application was registered as the Civil Misc. Application No.73 of 2017. On 14.9.2017, the petitioner made an application Exh.6 for interim custody/visitation rights for his minor son. It is further case of the petitioner that after the filing of the said application, incidentally there was a report reading session on 12.10.2017 at Yudhveer's school, Navrachana School, Vadodara, where both the parties were required to remain present and at that time, his son Yudhveer clinged on to the petitioner in front of the teachers and refused to go back with his mother. Looking to his strong wish to stay with his father, the teachers in the school intervened and suggested the respondent to allow Yudhveer to spend some time with his father. The respondent reluctantly permitted Yudhveer to spend a few hours with the petitioner, however, thereafter Yudhveer refused to go back to his mother and since then Yudhveer was residing with the petitioner at Vadod.

3. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a purshis at Exh.11 before the Family Court to the effect that his son was with him since 12.10.2017 and was not ready to go back to his mother. The respondent thereupon filed her reply to the application filed by the petitioner and also made counter-claim at Exh.14, seeking return of the custody of the person of Yudhveer, denying all the allegations made in the application, and further contending inter alia that the respondent was harassed by the petitioner and his family members since the time she had married to the petitioner. As regards the incident on 12.10.2017, she had stated that the petitioner herein had taken her child from the school on 12.10.2017 and thereafter had requested the respondent to keep the child with him for two days as the school was closed for Diwali break, to which the respondent had agreed, and since then the respondent was never given back the child. According to the respondent, the petitioner had misguided the school authorities and also the Court by making false declaration.

4. The Family Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the petitioner's application at Exh.6 and allowed the respondent's application Exh.14 by directing the petitioner to hand over the interim custody of their minor son Yudhveer to the respondent within two days from the date of the impugned order.

5. It seems that when the matter was listed before the coordinate Bench on 28.12.2017, the Court had passed an order making an interim arrangement as mentioned therein. However, it appears that the said arrangement also did not successfully work out. When the matter was listed before this Court, at the requ