MAT.APP.(F.C.) 32/2023

Page 1 of 13

1*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: August 04, 2023

Pronounced on: September 26, 2023

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 32/2023 & CM APPL. 4831/2023 & 4832/2023

TIRPAT SINGH BANSAL

.... Appellant

Through:

In person with Ms. Seema Seth &

Mr. Shreya Maggu, Advocates

Versus

JAGWANT KAUR

..... Respondent

Through:

In person with Mr. Bipul Kumar,

Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

JUDGMENT

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J

1.

The order dated 17.01.2023 passed by learned Family Court, Delhi in

G.P. No.61/2020 titled as „Jagwant Kaur vs. Tirpat Singh Bansal‟ has been

assailed by the appellant in the present appeal. By the impugned order dated

17.01.2023, learned Family Court while deciding application under Section

12 of Guardians & Wards Act r/w Section 6 of the Hindu Minority &

Guardianship Act, 1956 r/w Section 151 CPC in respect of interim custody

of the minor girl child of the parties, has inter alia granted her interim

custody to the respondent-wife.

Digitally Signed

By:ROSY MUNJAL

Signing Date:26.09.2023

14:46

Signature Not Verified

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 32/2023

Page 2 of 13

2.

The back forth of the case, as spelt out in the present appeal, are that

the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 01.11.2017 as per

Hindu Rites and ceremonies, and out of this wedlock, a girl child was born

on 08.01.2019 at Dehradun, at the maternal home of respondent-wife.

3.

The appellant in the present appeal has averred that respondent-wife

who has been working as Geologist with the Geological Survey of India, has

to spend about 100 days in the field in remote areas in a span of 8 months.

The appellant has averred that on 07.01.2020, when respondent-wife was

away due to field work and had carried the girl child with her, he

surprisingly visited them on the birthday of the child and found that one of

her colleague was sharing her premises.

4.

According to appellant, on 01.03.2020, the respondent-wife went to

Pune for her field job, leaving behind the child with the appellant and

thereafter, abandoned her. In July, 2020, he claims to have received a call

from respondent-wife that she wanted divorce and also wanted to take the

child to Dehradun with her.

5.

In August, 2020, the appellant-husband filed a Guardianship Petition

being G.P. No.24/2020 seeking injunction to restrain the respondent-wife

from forcibly taking the child away. On 31.08.2020, a consent order was

passed by the learned court wherein the respondent-wife was permitted to

have virtual meeting with the child for half an hour every day.

6.

Thereafter in December, 2020, a Guardianship Petition being G.P.

No.61/2020, under Section 23 of the Guardians and Wards Act, was filed by

respondent-wife wherein an application under Section 12 of the Act and

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act, 1956 was also filed.

Digitally Signed

By:ROSY MUNJAL

Signing Date:26.09.2023

14:46

Signature Not Verified

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 32/2023

Page 3 of 13

In the said petition, vide order dated 15.01.2021, learned Family Court

allowed the respondent-wife to meet the child in City Mall, Sector-21,

Dwarka for one hour. Vide order dated 27.02.2021, the learned Family

Court granted custody of the child for one week to the respondent-wife. The

appellant-husband thereafter withdrew G.P. 24/2020.

7.

The appellant has asserted that pursuant to order dated 27.02.2021,

the custody of the child was given to respondent-wife and when the child

came back after a week, she was in a pitiable condition and looked

extremely weak, traumatised and shocked.

8.

Learned Family court vide order dated 02.06.2