SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(P&H) 2108

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMIT RAWAL, J.
Vikas Nanda - Petitioner
Vs
Ashu Nanda - Respondent
C.R. No.5959 of 2016
Decided on : 18-10-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate

The child's wishes and the party's stake in custody and visitation matters are crucial considerations. Attempting to re-agitate matrimonial discord through visitation rights petitions is inappropriate.

Headnote:

visitation rights - custody dispute - The court dismissed the husband's revision petition seeking visitation rights with the minor child, emphasizing that the child, aged 8, expressed a clear unwillingness to be with the father. The court found the application to be an attempt to re-agitate the matrimonial discord and held that the husband had no stake after giving custody to the wife. The husband's act of refuting the court's observations was deemed deplorable, and the petition was dismissed with costs to be paid to the wife.

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a revision petition seeking visitation rights with the minor child after a compromise granting custody to the wife.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the husband's application not maintainable, considering the child's unwillingness to be with the father and the absence of any stake for the husband after giving custody to the wife. The husband's act of refuting the court's observations was deemed deplorable.

Issues: Custody dispute, visitation rights, maintainability of the revision petition

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of considering the child's wishes in custody and visitation matters, and held that the husband had no stake after giving custody to the wife. The court also highlighted the inappropriateness of attempting to re-agitate the matrimonial discord through the visitation rights petition.

Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. The present revision petition is arising out of the application moved by the husband for granting permission to have the visitation rights to meet the child. It is a matter of record that on the basis of compromise arrived at, the petition filed under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has been disposed of vide order dated 31.05.2014 and as per the compromise, the custody of the minor child aged 8 years has been given to the wife and application moved by the father on 24.03.2015 for meeting rights with the minor son has been dismissed, hence revision petition.

2. Mr. Jagdish Rai, Advocate and Mr. Neeraj, Advocate have put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-wife.

3. In pursuance of the direction of this Court, both the parties with minor child are present in Court.

4. This Court had called upon the minor child at dais and asked him about his name, school name, games/avocation he is into. After building some confidence, I asked him whether his father is present in Court or can he identify the father who is present in Court and the answer was in negative. To a specific question whether he has father, the answer was that he does not have any father.

5. Once the minor child, who is 8 years old, does not want to be with his father, the application is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the matrimonial discord between the couple who have already parted ways. During the course of the hearing, the husband without instructions from his counsel stood up and refuted certain observations made by this Court in a vociferous tone. This act of the husband is not appreciated and is deplorable.

6. I am of the view that the application of the petitioner was not maintainable as he has given custody of the child to the wife and kept no stake. If at all, he was/is aggrieved, the remedy lied elsewhere and not in the manner and mode as has been done. The revision petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the wife.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top