Point of Law: It is well settled that while taking a decision regarding custody or other issues pertaining to a child, welfare of the child is of paramount consideration. This Court in Gaurav Nagpal vs. Sumedha Nagpal, (2009) 1 SCC 42, had occasion to consider the parameters while determining the issues of child custody and visitation rights, entire law on the subject was reviewed.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order dated 05th February, 2020 passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow, whereby petition under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Guardians Act’) filed by the respondent-husband for visitation rights was disposed of.

2. Succinctly stating the facts of the case as set out in the appeal are that marriage between the appellant No. 1-Smt. Deepika Chopra Garg (hereinafter referred to as ‘the wife’) and Sri. Nikhil Garg (hereinafter referred to as ‘the husband’) was solemnized on 10th February, 2015; the appellant No. 2-Ms. Anaika Garg was born from the said wedlock on 09th May, 2018; the respondent-husband assaulted the wife and the wife was sent back to her parental house; the wife lodged an F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 207 dated 18th June, 2019 with P.S. Mahanagar. The respondent-husband filed a suit under Section 25 of the Guardians Act which was registered as Suit No. 209 of 2019. The husband also moved an application for visitation rights. The appellant-wife filed written statement/objections to the petition under Section 25 of the Guardians Act and reply/objections to the application for visitation rights.

3. Vide impugned order dated 05th February, 2020, learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow disposed of the application for visitation rights and the husband was permitted to meet the minor female child Ms. Anaika Garg on fifteenth and twenty eighth day of each month in the court before the Reader from 03:00 P.M. to 04:30 P.M.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-wife has filed the present appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of marriage, parents of the husband informed that their son is a doctor working in a hospital at Delhi and after marriage, he will join his father’s clinic; after marriage, the wife came to know that her husband is a drug addict and consumes drug regularly; the husband started misbehaving with the wife and physically assaulted her; the wife and her parents came to know that the respondent-husband cannot practice as doctor as per orders of Medical Council of India. He also submitted that the husband sent the wife to her parental house in February, 2019, without any clothes, jewellery and other articles.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the husband used to beat mercilessly to the wife. He further pointed out that there is whatsapp chat and audio recording between the parties wherein the husband has not denied that he had cheated, misbehaved and fought with the wife and the same was admitted by the husband before the Family Court on 24.01.2020, which amounts to admission on the part of the respondent.

7. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the wife and his child are living separately since February, 2019; since then, the respondent-husband did not care to see the wife or the child, no amount of maintenance was ever paid for upbringing of the child and the respondent-husband has no emotion for the child; the minor child is quite scared from behavior and attitude of the father and therefore, the visitation rights given to the husband is illegal. He also submitted that while deciding the issue of visitation rights of the minor children, the Court will have to consider the welfare, interest of the minor children and decision of the minor child is paramount consideration and should not be based on the ego satisfaction of the parents.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has raised a preliminary objection that the appeal under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is not maintainable as the impugned order is an interlocutory order. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment in the case of Swarna Prava Tripathy vs. Dibyasingha Tripathy, AIR 1998 Ori. 173.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband also submits that, admittedly, marr