##PAGE1##

1

2026:CGHC:23070

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WP227 No. 487 of 2026

1 - Sunil Kotadiya S/o Shri Jee-Vanchandra Kotadiya Aged About 41

Years Occupation- Business, R/o Anup Jewelers (Kotadiya Jewelers)

Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Kotwali, Tehsil And District-

Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Petitioner(s)

versus

1 - Priya Kankariya D/o Prakash Kankariya Aged About 40 Years

Occupation- Advocate, R/o Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Kotwali,

Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

2 - Veer Kotadiya S/o Sunil Kotadiya Aged About 11 Years Through

Mother Priya Kankariya, R/o Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Kotwali,

Tehsil And District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.)

... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.

Order on Board

14/05/2026

1. Present is a writ petition under article 227 of the Constitution of

India filed by the petitioner against the order dated 27.02.2026

passed by learned Family Court, Rajnandgaon, in MJC No.

Digitally signed by

ALOK SHARMA

Date: 2026.05.23

16:07:45 +0530

2

12/2024, whereby the learned Family Court partly allowed the

application of the petitioner filed under section 151 of Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908, and granted visitation right to the petitioner

with his minor son, and directed the respondent to remain present

before the court in each date of hearing along with the minor child

after his school hours.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner and respondent No. 1

were husband and wife. Out of their wedlock, the respondent No.

2 was born. On account of matrimonial discord, both parties

separated, and ultimately they filed an application under Section

13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, for the grant of divorce on

the ground of mutual consent, before the learned Family Court,

Rajnandgaon, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 134-A/2023.

The said application is allowed on 13.06.2023, and their marriage

is dissolved by a decree of divorce. The complaint filed by the

respondent No. 1 before the learned Judicial Magistrate First

Class, Rajnandgaon, under Section 12 of the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, has also been

quashed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on

14.10.2025, passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1125/2025.

3. It is also the case of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 1

is not allowing the petitioner to meet his son, i.e. the respondent

No. 2, he filed an application under Section 6 of the Hindu

Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, for declaring him the

guardian of the minor child/respondent No. 2, before the learned

3

Family Court, Rajnandgaon. In the proceeding, an application

under Section 151of CPC has also been filed for visitation rights

to meet his son during the pendency of the proceeding. The said

application is partly allowed by the learned family Court on

27.02.2026 and directed the respondent No. 1 to remain present

on each date of hearing along with the respondent No. 2 child

after his school hours. Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner

is the father of the respondent No. 2. He has a natural affection

with his son. Directing the respondent No. 1 to keep the minor son

present before the Court on each date of hearing would adversely

affect the welfare of the child, and he would be placed in mental

trauma due to the court proceedings. During the proceedings of

divorce and quashing of proceedings of the Domestic Violence

Act, there was a clear understanding between the parties that the

petitioner would be allowed to take the child with him on the

festivals and other occasions. She would further submit that under

the paramount consideration of the welfare of the child, it would

not be proper to produce the child before the court on every date

of hearing, and instead thereof, the petitioner may be permitted to

take the child with him every week and on the festival or certain

specific occasion. The environment of the Court pr