A civil revisional application regarding visitation rights emphasized the importance of complete evidence and adherence to procedural requirements within child welfare contexts.

Susant Vyas @ Sushanta Vyas Mr. Sudhasatva Banerjee Ms. Aafreen Perveen Mr. Shashwat Nayak Mr. Aurin Chakraborty Mr. Gholam Shahbaz Ms. Aafreen Begam ..for the petitioners Mr. Pratip Mukherjee Mr. Arpit Agarwal Mr. P. Biswas ..for the opposite party This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the opposite party in Misc. Case No. 141 of 2023 and is directed against an order being no. 17 dated June, 4, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 5^th Court at Howrah.

By the order impugned, the learned judge directed the petitioner herein to attend at any third place in the city of Mumbai nearest to the city of Pune for visitation of the father with the minor child Hriday Vyas and that visitation will be for the period of 48 hours in every month possibly on 2^nd Saturday and 2^nd Sunday of each month and the child is to accompany to Mumbai with only one male member of the family of the petitioners herein and any violation of the same will be disobedience to the order passed by the court. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned judge by an order dated 1^st March, 2025 after interacting with the child expressed an opinion that it will not be proper to allow any visitation right to the opposite party herein as it will have a negative impact in his mind and psychology as the children are adamant. He further submits that the learned judge directed the petitioners herein to place the child before the clinical child psychologist along with the copy of the order. He submits that pursuant to the said order the child was taken to the clinical child psychologist who after examining the child gave a report to the petitioners herein in a sealed cover to be placed before the learned trial judge. He submits that on the day when the impugned order was passed due to some communication gap between the arguing counsel and the learned advocate on record, the report in the sealed cover could not be filed and a prayer for adjournment was made. He submits that when the learned judge was of the view that the opinion of the child psychologist is necessary before passing any order for visitation, the order impugned order ought not to have been passed.

The learned advocate for the opposite party seriously disputes the submission made by Mr.

Banerjee. He submits that the opposite party has serious doubts as to whether the child was at all taken to the child psychologist. He submits that instead of filing the report the petitioners herein filed an adjournment petition annexing a medical document. He submits that such document bears a date prior to the passing of the order dated 1^st March, 2025 and thus it is apparent that the petitioner herein did not take any steps in compliance of the order dated 1st March, 2025. He further submits that the petitioner herein is only trying to delay the visitation of the father with the minor child on frivolous grounds. He further submits that 6^th August, 2025 has been fixed for hearing of an application filed by the opposite party alleging willful and deliberate violation of the order dated 4th June, 2025.

After some argument Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the report in the sealed cover given by the child psychologist is with him and he can produce the same before the learned trial judge if an opportunity is given to the petitioners herein.

Mr. Banerjee prays for leave to withdraw this civil revisional application with liberty to approach the learned trial judge by filing an appropriate application before the learned trial judge to enable him to produce the relevant materials before the learned trial judge.

Mr. Banerjee however submits that since the petitioner preferred the civil revisional application, and in the meantime the period of limitation for filing an application for recalling has expired, a direction be given to the learned trial judge to consider the application on merits withou