JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

Once again, a couple is entangled in a bitter legal battle and in ancillary proceedings arising out of the same, the father seeks visitation rights to meet his daughter aged 12 ½ years.

2. Challenge in CR-3662-2023 instituted by the husband (Sourabh Soni) (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”) is to the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, U.T., Chandigarh, vide which the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the HMA”) for the grant of visitation rights to meet his minor child was disposed of. In CR- 4601-2023 instituted by the wife (Nitika Dhir) (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”), apart from assailing the aforesaid order dated 26.05.2023, challenge has also been laid to an order of even date, vide which the application moved by her for ascertaining the wishes of the minor child was dismissed.

3. Since both revision petitions essentially arise out of the same order, they are being decided by way of this common judgment. Facts shall essentially be derived from CR-3662-2023 though reference to facts as given in the other revision petition viz. CR-4601-2023 shall also be made wherever required.

4. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 22.11.2011 at Garshankar (District Hoshiarpur). Since on 22.11.2011, only a Court marriage had been performed, ceremonies were held on 08.02.2012. A baby girl child (Lakshita) was born on 29.07.2013. It appears that relations between husband and wife deteriorated as a result of which, the petitioner instituted a petition under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (Annexure P- 3). Prior to that, he instituted a petition for the grant of divorce (Annexure P-2) on the ground of cruelty. A habeas corpus petition was also instituted by the petitioner which was ultimately disposed of vide order dated25.04.2023 (Annexure P-5).

4.1 Thereafter, an application (Annexure P-6) under Section 26 HMA was instituted by the petitioner for the grant of visitation rights and one full day (including night) custody twice a month during the holidays of the minor child, and to celebrate the Indian festivals and birthdays with her. A prayer was also made to permit the petitioner to make a phone call to the minor child for at least 30 minutes daily on Zoom/Whatsapp/phone call for the purpose of educating her. Permission was also sought to attend the PTMs (parent teacher meetings) of the minor child and custody for 15 days during summer vacations and 11 days during winter vacations was also sought.

5. The application moved under Section 26 HMA was opposed by the respondent primarily on the ground that since the child was in the growing age and was attaining puberty, the father could not attend to her at this kind of a stage and she would require the constant attention, company and guidance of the mother. Allegations and counter-allegations were made by both sides, which normally is the case in matrimonial proceedings. The same do not need any reference as they are not relevant for the decision of the instant revision petitions.

6. Vide order dated 26.05.2023, the application instituted by the petitioner under Section 26 HMA was disposed of with the following directions:-

“7. Parents of minor Lakshita due to their irreconcilable differences have left a permanent scar on the psyche of the minor child. In the given circumstances to contend that at this stage physical custody of minor child be handed over for the celebration of the festivals, birthdays at this stage to applicant-father before some sort of love and affection spurts between the minor daughter and the petitioner-father will not serve any purpose. In view of the above said facts and discussion it is directed that after the lapse of seven days from date of passing this order for a period of six months the respondent-wife will provide phone number to facilitate petitioner-husband to make a call including Video Call to daughte