##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15653-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1120/2021

Sunita W/o Sunil Kumar Meel D/o Shri Gurudayal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Togda Khurd, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, At Present R/o Sector 7, Shastrinagar, Jodhpur, At Present Posted At Mathuradas Mathur Hospital, Jodhpur On Contract

Basis Employment.

----Appellant Versus

Sunil Kumar Meel S/o Shri Jagdish Meel, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Meelo Ki Dhani, Tehsil Udawas, District Jhunjhunnu,

Rajasthan ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surendra Surana For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Gwala

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL

Order(Oral)

06/04/2026 Per : Arun Monga, J

1. Appellant before this Court is aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021 vide which the petition filed by her under Section 13 the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1955) seeking dissolution of marriage with the respondent-husband was dismissed by the

learned Family Court.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:03:03 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 07:47:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15653-DB] (2 of 4) [CMA-1120/2021] 2. The parties were referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court and it appears that at some stage they were inclined to mutually part ways subject to the respondent being granted visitation rights. However, for one reason or another, no concrete terms and conditions were finalized during the course of the

mediation proceedings.

3. In the course of hearing before this Court, on a query posed to the learned counsel for the respondent, he candidly submitted that he had already sought instructions from his client and is agreeable to not oppose the appeal subject to the respondent- husband being granted visitation rights in respect of the minor daughter born from the wedlock, who is currently in the custody

of the appellant-wife.

4. Likewise, learned counsel for the appellant is also agreeable to the aforesaid suggestions and states that he has sought instructions from the appellant, who has also consented that whenever the respondent-husband wishes to meet the minor daughter, he may visit the appellant’s residence by giving one day’s prior notice of his proposed visit subject to not exceeding

twice a month.

5. As regards the vacation period falling within the school’s academic calendar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in case the minor, who is currently 15 years old, agrees to go out on vacation with the respondent and/or otherwise stay at his place, appellant-wife has no objection, if the vacations are divided

equally between both the parents.

6. In view of the aforesaid statements made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we allow the appeal by setting

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:03:03 PM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 07:47:34 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15653-DB] (3 of 4) [CMA-1120/2021] aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 29.10.2021 passed by the learned Family Court with liberty to the parties to take appropriate steps by filing an application under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of marriage by mutual

consent.

7. We further direct that, as part of the mutual settlement, the learned Family Court shall record that the respondent shall be entitled to visit and meet his minor daughter at the residence of the appellant. In the event the daughter is agreeable, such visitation rights may extend to overnight stays and it shall be the responsibility of the respondent to drop the minor daughter at the

appellant’s residence on the following day before 5:00 p.m.

8. Likewise, as already noted hereinabove, the appellant and the respondent shall work out an arrangement between themselves for dividing the vacation period in equal proportion either by the mother choosing the first half or vice versa the father choosing the first half and the other party shall accordingly be entitled to the remaining half of the vacation subject of course

to th