IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Appeal from Order No.580 of 2023

Gajendra Singh …… Appellant

Vs.

Smt. Shivani ……Respondent

Presence:

Ms. Rajni Rangwal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Pawan

Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant.

Ms. Ruchita Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent.

Judgment reserved on: 06.10.2025 Judgment delivered on: 27.10.2025

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. (Per)

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant

against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, Dehradun, whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Sections 7 and

10 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that while rejecting the petition, the learned Family Court has relied solely on the statement of the minor child, Mast er Akshat, who was merely five years old at the time of recording his statement. It is contended that the said statement was given as the child was under parental alienation syndrome and was

psychologically manipulated by the respondent.

3. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent submits that during the pendency of the present appeal, counseling sessions were held twice before the Court. In both such counseling sessions, the grandson of the appellant appeared uncomfortable while sitting with or speaking to the appellant. Master Akshat clearly expressed that his mother is taking good care of him, he is happy with her, and he does not wish to meet the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that in matters of custody and guardianship, the paramount consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant, without pressing the main relief, alternatively prayed that at least visitation rights be granted to the appellant to enable them to meet their grandson.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that, based on the statement of Master Akshat and the counseling reports, the child has clearly expressed his reluctance to go with the appellant even for a short duration. In such circumstances, granting visitation rights to the appellant would not be in the welfare or best interest of the child. Moreover, in view of the child’s unwillingness to even meet his grandparents, it would be impractical and against the child’s welfare to enforce any visitation arrangement through a judicial order.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gaytri Bajaj v. Jiten Bhalla, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 471, has held that when the children have expressed their reluctance to meet or go with the non-custodial parent, any order of custody or visitation against their wishes would be contrary to their welfare and cannot be judicially enforced.

8. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the judgment and order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vikasnagar, Dehradun. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed. The minor child shall continue to remain in the custody of his mother until he attains the age of majority.

There shall be no order as to costs.

(Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

27.10.2025 27.10.2025 BS B SI A N L G W H ANT DDC2ass8SD te c I . 5 O iN a 5 = N r g b F t i .U U : G 4 a i e f 4 tc 2 R l . T : a 1H 2 N = 8 2 T l 8 0 I c u 0 A yN 7 O=d m 2 5 R s, ff F 5 i b o A4 b g . U D bb = 1 Ke n 0 T ad H C Hr e = . 71 0 2 Id A GA c 0 9 8 Ne b 4 H 1R A 1 8DE y cA 7 C 6 1 8 , B K A : 4 O 4 b 2 A H 1 0 1 d 4 UL 3 A c D : b WR 4 C 5 N F 8 T 2 8 1 A D 4 b 2 4 O + 6 N 1, 0 A 0 1 F 6 T , 6 5 4 ep U 8 S ' F 8 3 o T 0 I 9 c N 0 s CA at ' GA a 3 7 4 H l R F 9 D C A A 3 o 5 7 9 K F dd 0 H 4 e , e 8 A = c a 3 N n 2f 4 76 = D 6 23 B , E a0 o AB 1 u L5 71 W = c, H 3 0 AD 2 I N G f E e T H 5