Back
SATYEN VAIDYA
Nitant Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Indu Bala – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to assail order dated 18.07.2020, passed by learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, in case CMP No. 1490 of 2019.
2. Petitioner and respondent are married to each other. Their relations became strained giving rise to multifarious litigations. One of these is the petition for dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce filed by the petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The ground pleaded in said petition is “cruelty”
3. During the pendency of the proceedings of divorce petition, petitioner filed an application before learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, seeking custody of only girl child of the parties. Respondent opposed the prayer. Learned District Judge (Family Court), Shimla, ruled the custody of child to remain with respondent. However, visitation rights were granted in favour of the petitioner in following terms:-
(i) The applicant shall meet the child on second and 4th Sunday of the month at a place mutually agreed by the parties between 12 noon to 4 PM. If for some reason this meeting does not happen on the fixed days, t
High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within limits of jurisdiction of subordinate courts or tribunals.
The welfare of the child is paramount in custody and visitation matters, and both parents have a right to access the child.
Jurisdiction for custody of a minor must be determined by the child's ordinary residence, as per Section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
