Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 46
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, ALOK KUMAR VERMA, JJ.
Puja Rani – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Singh S/o Ramesh Singh – Respondent
First Appeal No. 58 of 2021
Decided On : 05-07-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Mehboob Rahi, Mr. Abhishek Verma.
Point of Law: Custody of child - Right of Father to interact - Since child is small one and since a petition for child's custody has been filed by respondent (father), both child and respondent (father) have right to interact with each other - Even attend age of two years, a child should not be deprived of father figure.
Headnote:
Custody of minor – Respondent seeking for – Filed petition before Family Court – An interim arrangement made by Family Court – Appellant aggrieved by this order – Family Court has directed the appellant to ensure that respondent is permitted to interact with minor child, through Video Conferencing on daily basis for terminates – Filed appeal before High Court —Determination of – Since child is small one – Petition for child’s custody has been filed by respondent – Respondent have right to interact with each other – If the child does not speak and cannot converse with his father, considering his tender age, at least, father would have satisfaction of seeing his child, and be able to see, whether child is being well looked-after by appellant or not – High Court does not find any illegality or perversity in impugned order – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 3, 5, 7 and 8)
vo;Ld dh vfHkj{kk & foi{kh pkg jgk gS & ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; ds le{k ;kfpdk nkf[ky & ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; }kjk ,d vUrfje O;oLFkk dh xbZ & vihykfFkZuh bl vkns’k ls O;fFkr & ikfjokfjd U;k;ky; us vihykfFkZuh dks ;g lqfuf’pr djus dks funsZf’kr fd;k gS fd foi{kh dks nSfud vk/kkj ij nl feuV ds fy, ohfM;ks dkUÝsaflax ds ek/;e ls vo;Ld ckyd ds lkFk lEeq[k gksus ds fy, vuqer fd;k tkrk gS & mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vihy nkf[ky & vo/kkj.k & pw¡fd ckyd vHkh NksVk gS & ckyd dh vfHkj{kk ds fy, ;kfpdk foi{kh }kjk nkf[ky dh xbZ gS & foi{kh dks ,d nwljs ls lEeq[k gksus ¼okrkZyki djus½ dk vf/kdkj izkIr gS & ;fn ckyd ugha cksy ikrk vkSj vius firk ls okrkZyki ugha dj ldrk rks mldh dksey vk;q ij fopkj djrs gq, de ls de firk dks vius ckyd dks ns[kus dh lUrqf"V gksxh vkSj og ns[kus esa leFkZ gks ldsxk fd D;k cPps dh ns[kHkky vihykfFkZuh }kjk HkyhHkk¡fr dh tk jgh gS vFkok ugha & mPp U;k;ky; vk{ksfir vkns’k esa dksbZ voS/kkfudrk vFkok vuqfprrk ugha ikrh gS & vihy [kkfjtA ¼izLrj 3] 5] 7 o 8½
JUDGMENT :
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 21.01.2021, passed by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, Dehradun in O.S. No. 32 of 2019, whereby the learned Judge has directed the appellant (mother) to ensure that the respondent (father) is permitted to interact with the minor child, Master Shivansh Pratap Singh, through videoconferencing, on daily basis for ten minutes beginning at 06:00 P.M. The learned Additional Judge, Family Court, has also given an option to the appellant (mother) that in case due to any technical reason, the video-conferencing cannot be held, the appellant (mother) shall be free to ensure that the video-conferencing is held on the next day.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant, Smt. Puja Rani, and the respondent (father), Mr. Dinesh Singh, were married on 24.11.2017 in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. During the wedlock, Master Shivansh Pratap Singh was born. According to the appellant, she was severely harassed and tortured by the respondent (father), and was ousted from her matrimonial house. The appellant claims to be presently living at her parental house along with the child.
3. The respondent (father) has filed a petition before the learned Family Court for seeking the custody of the minor child. By order dated 21.01.2021, an interim arrangement has been made by the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, in the terms mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal before this Court.
4. Mr. Mehboob Rahi, the learned proxy counsel for Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that since the child is only two years’ old, it would be extremely difficult for the appellant (mother) to make him interact with the respondent (father) on daily basis. Moreover, there may be certain technical difficulties, which may arise, which will not allow the appellant (mother) to ensure that the respondent (father) should interact with the child for ten minutes at 06:00 P.M. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
5. Heard Mr. Mehboob Rahi, the learned proxy counsel for Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the appellant, and perused the impugned order.
6. Since the child is small one and since a petition for the child’s custody has been filed by the respondent (father), both the child, and the respondent (father) have the right to interact with each other. For, even at the tender age of two years, a child should not be deprived of the father figure. Moreover, the learned Additional Judge, Family Court, has already given an option to the appellant (mother) that in case due to any technical reason, the video-conferencing cannot be held on a daily basis, or on a particular day, she is welcome to ensure that the video conferencing does take place on the next day.
7. Furthermore, there cannot, possibly, be any difficulty that will arise for the child. For, even if the child does not speak and cannot converse with his father, considering his tender age, at least, the father would have the satisfaction of seeing his child and be able to see, whether the child is being well looked-after by the appellant or not?
8. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Hence, the appeal is devoid of any merit; it is, hereby, dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
