155 31.07. CO 33 of 2025

2025 Abhiroop Roy Ct. No. 06 Vs.

Ab Smt. Arnabi Roy nee Dutta.

---------------

Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, Mr. Amitava Ghoshal, Mr. Amitava Bhowmik.

… for the petitioner.

Mr. Anjan Ray, Mr. Subhajit Chowdhury. … for the opposite party.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the father/petitioner and is directed against an order being No. 38 dated 11^th November 2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barrackpore in Misc. Case (Act VIII) No. 01 of 2021. By the order impugned, the father/petitioner was allowed to meet the child twice a month i.e. on 1^st and 3^rd Saturday of every month in the Court Room from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.

2. Mr. Srijib Chakraborty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the father/petitioner submits that initially the father/petitioner was allowed to meet the child at the residence of the mother/opposite party, but since the father/petitioner was facing difficulty in meeting the child in the residence of the mother/opposite party, the father/petitioner filed an application for modification of the order dated 12^th September 2022 praying for an order allowing the father/petitioner to take the child to his residence. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that on an application being filed by the mother/opposite party praying for modification of the order dated 12^th September 2022, the learned Trial Judge passed the impugned order thereby directing the visitation to be held in the Court Room. He also submits that instead of a Court Room, the father/petitioner may be allowed to take the child at his own residence. He, however, submits that though the application of the wife/opposite party herein was considered but the application filed by father was not considered and the same has been kept pending.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the mother/opposite party herein submits that the minor child, who is aged about 8 years, is an ADHD patient and, therefore, the Court premises is the best place for visitation of the child keeping in mind the security of the child. He further submits that the father/petitioner created trouble and also tried to mishandle the child at the parks and malls where the child was taken for visitation purpose. He thus submits that the impugned order should not be interfered with by this Court.

4. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed. Record reveals that the learned Trial Judge, by an order dated 12^th September 2022, allowed the prayer for visitation of the father/petitioner herein of his child Ayansh Roy in part thereby directing that the father/petitioner shall visit his son on every fortnight on Sunday on and from 1.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. in the house of the respondent and during vacation, the father/petitioner shall be permitted to meet with his son once in 7 days and the day of meeting shall be fixed by mutual arrangement and during vacation, the father/petitioner can take his son to any place of play or park or shopping mall etc. and the mother/opposite party will accompany them and the place of visit and time shall be fixed by mutual arrangement.

5. The father/petitioner filed an application stating the ground for which it is not possible for him to meet the child at the residence of the opposite party. Written Objection to such application has been filed. However, the fact remains that such application is still pending.

6. In the meantime, the mother/opposite party filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 14^th March 2024 praying for modification of the order dated 12^th September 2022. In paragraph 6 and 7 of the said application it has been stated that since the child is an ADHD patient and is under treatment, for better protection of the minor, the mother will take the child to Barrackpore Court for visitation.

7. The application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the mother/opposite party was taken