ORDER

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 13.5.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the XI Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Indore in Guardian Case No.183/2018, whereby the petitioner/wife’s application filed for grant of temporary custody of her children has been rejected.

2. In brief, the facts of the case are that admittedly the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was solemnized in the year 2007 and out of the said wedlock, they also have two children, a minor daughter Mira, aged 10 years, and a son Pravir, aged 14 years. It is also not disputed that there are certain differences between the parties in their marriage and in the month of December 2017 the respondent/husband took the children from the petitioner’s custody temporarily to meet them with their grandmother, as the respondent is a resident of Greater Noida in U.P., and thereafter he never returned the children. A writ petition for Habeas Corpus was also filed by the petitioner which was registered as W.P.No.11027/2018, but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.6.2018, holding that the custody of the children with their father cannot be termed as illegal and the petitioner was directed to take recourse of the Guardians and Wards Act before the competent Court. The present proceedings have arisen out of the same Family Court’s order wherein the application for temporary custody of the children was filed by the petitioner only for the period from 16.5.2022 to 16.6.2022 for her daughter Mira, and from 30.7.2022 to 10.8.2022 for her son Pravir.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Judge of the Family Court had erred in relying upon the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid W.P. No.11027/2018, wherein this Court had declined the custody considering that the children are residing happily with their father. It is further submitted that even in the aforesaid order, this Court has clearly mentioned that the said order shall not come in the way of the parties and the trial Court shall decide the matter based upon the evidence and based upon the other factors, in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not seeking permanent custody of the children, as her son is already studying in a boarding school where as her daughter is studying in Noida and only seeking their company temporarily during their summer vacations.

4. In support of her submissions, Mrs. Kher, counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the Child Access and Custody Guidelines issued by this Court which also include visitation rights in respect of the children, and it is submitted that the said guidelines ought to have been followed by the Court concerned.

5. On the other hand, Ms. Anantita Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted the petition itself is not maintainable, as there is no illegality committed by the learned Judge of the Family Court and thus, to exercise the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not called for, as there is no error apparent on the face of the record. It is also submitted that the children are already living happily with their father and are not at all interested in coming to Indore to meet their mother, as the petitioner herself was misbehaving with them while they were in her custody. It is further submitted that even otherwise, not only the Family Court but even this Court has also had a conversation with the children regarding their willingness to reside with their mother, in which, they have declined. It is further submitted that even the application filed in a case arising out the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the visitation rights have been limited to the petitioner meeting with her children in Gymkhana Club, Greater Noida (U.P.) on her own expenses and even the F