Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(P&H) 26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Archana Puri, J.
Gaurav Raheja - Appellant
Vs.
Neha - Respondent
CR No. 2207 of 2020
Decided On : 06-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S.S. Behl Adv., Mr. Gaurav Vir Singh Behl Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Sethi Adv., Mr. Anshuman Sethi Adv.

The welfare of the child is paramount in custody and visitation rights, necessitating a balanced, shared parenting approach tailored to specific circumstances.

Headnote:(A) Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 - Section 25 - Visitation rights granted to petitioner-father while ensuring the welfare of the child is prioritized - Separate custody arrangements controversial owing to parental disputes. (Paras 2, 4, 11, 13, 24, 28)

(B) Legal principles - Consistent view of courts to prioritize the welfare of the child in custody matters; shared parenting is emphasized. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The marriage between the parties occurred on 12.12.2012. They have a daughter born on 16.05.2016 who suffers from a medical condition. The petitioner had sought custody following disputes about the child's relocation, leading to applications for visitation rights.

Findings of Court:
Visitation rights ordered to facilitate bonding between the child and both parents while respecting the welfare needs and emotional requirements of the child. The petitioner will have structured visitation access to the child to maintain their relationship.

Issues: The main questions addressed involve the appropriateness of visitation rights and ensuring child welfare amidst parental conflicts.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts prioritize the emotional welfare and shared parenting approach concerning visitation rights and custody arrangements while accommodating significant parental differences.

Result: Revision petition partly allowed, with new visitation orders issued.

Table of Content
1. challenge to visitation rights and previous orders; overview of case facts. (Para 1 , 6)
2. the importance of the child's welfare in custody matters. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. emphasis on shared parenting and priority of child's welfare. (Para 10 , 11)
4. court's emphasis on child's welfare and relevant case law. (Para 12)
5. court's observations on the necessity of flexible visitation rights. (Para 15 , 17)
6. considerations on parental interactions and visitation arrangements. (Para 18 , 22)
7. continued visitation rights and family interaction for child’s emotional well-being. (Para 25 , 26)
8. final arrangements for visitation and the court's decision. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

Mrs. Archana Puri, J.

1. Challenge in the present revision petition is to the order dated 24.07.2020 (Annexure P-1) and order dated 28.08.2020 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Guardian Court, thereby, granting visitation rights to the petitioner-father and subsequent application for clarification was dismissed.

2. The facts germane, to be noticed, as culled from the paper-book are as follows:-

That, the marriage between the petitioner and respondent had taken place on 12.12.2012 and thereafter, they started residing in a flat in Zirakpur, owned by father of the petitioner. A girl child was born on 16.05.2016, who unfortunately, is suffering from ‘congenital tallipes equinovarus’. Thereafter, somewhere in the year 2019, the family shifted in a flat at Panchkula. After staying there for some time, the petitioner along with daughter had gone to Zirakpur flat. Though, there are assertions and counter assertions, with regard to the manner of going away of the petitioner along with the child, but however, there is no need to go into further details, in this regard, so far as, revision petition in hand, is concerned. Suffice only to notice that the petitioner along with daughter had gone away.

3. Subsequently, in the month of December 2019, petitioner Gaurav Raheja had filed a petition under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, for the custody of the minor child. However, in the month of February 2020, the respondent filed a complaint in Police Station Sector- 20, Panchkula, but no action was allegedly taken by the police on the said complaint. Consequently, respondent-Neha filed CRWP-3013-2020 before this Court.

4. Upon notice, present petitioner-Gaurav Raheja had also contested the same and the aforesaid petition was ultimately decided vide order dated 01.06.2020, copy whereof is Annexure P-3. While making certain observations, with regard to conduct of both the petitioner and the respondent, which need not to be taken into consideration by this Court, had issued various directions, which are reproduced, as herein given:-

(i) respondent no.4 is directed to hand over the custody of minor daughter Trisha to petitioner between 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on 02.06.2020 at the residence of her mother from where she was removed;

(ii) liberty is granted to respondent No.4 to file an appropriate interim custody application and till the same application is decided, the custody of the minor daughter shall remain with the mother;

(iii) during pendency of the custody petition before the Guardian Judge/ Civil Judge, respondent No.4-father shall be provided access to his minor daughter between 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. on every Saturday and Sunday and the petitioner shall ensure that respondent No.4 is properly treated and allowed to meet their minor daughter; the respondent no.4 shall intimate the petitioner in advance in the event he is unable to meet his daughter on certain days/weekends;

(iv) respondent no.4 shall continue to provide the medical care and treatment to the minor girl Trisha and bear the expenses as before and, as and when required, the petitioner shall by mutual co ordination hand over temporary custody to the respondent no.4 for th