MAT.A. (FC) No.153/2014 Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

MAT.APP.(F.C.) 153/2014 & CM No.20182/2014

MADHU PAMNANI & ORS

..... Appellants

Represented by:

Appellant in person

versus

NEERAJ PAMNANI

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Respondent in person

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON’BLE MS.JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1.

We had heard the parties at length on August 17, 2016 and had

indicated that judgment would be pronounced today. The reason was the

desire of the Court to go through the pleadings and the voluminous record in

the appeal which spans 569 pages. We did so for the reason the parties had

argued the appeal themselves.

2.

The voluminous record is replete with applications which are verbose

and were disposed of on August 17, 2016. They are full of allegations and

counter allegations against each other. Said pleadings are irrelevant to

decide the issue which arises in the appeal.

3.

The wife is aggrieved by the impugned order dated August 07, 2014

refusing to modify the visitation rights granted to the respondent to enable

him to meet the son and the daughter of the parties who are now aged 16

years and 15 years respectively. The reason given by the learned Judge

Family Court is that the Court is not competent to modify the order passed

2016:DHC:5854-DB

MAT.A. (FC) No.153/2014 Page 2 of 5

by the learned Predecessor Court.

4.

The reasoning is ex-facie incorrect for the reason any change in

circumstance would empower a Court to modify a previous order passed

concerning visitation rights.

5.

The appellant and the respondent are having a very bitter relationship

evidenced by the fact that the two are involved in multifarious litigations.

6.

Way back in the year 2009 the respondent filed a petition under

Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act seeking custody of the children :

a boy and a girl born to the appellant and the respondent. An interim order

was passed on April 05, 2010 granting visitation rights to the respondent

directing that the respondent shall pay the school fee of the children apart

from the maintenance which was granted to the appellant. The application

seeking review of the order dated April 05, 2010 filed by the respondent was

dismissed on July 27, 2010. Suffice it to highlight that seeking review the

respondent wanted to wriggle out of the condition imposed that apart from

he paying maintenance to his wife he would pay the school fee of the two

children.

7.

The guardianship petition filed by the respondent was disposed of on

September 27, 2012 declining prayer made by the respondent. However,

visitation rights already ordered were embodied in the final order dated

September 27, 2012.

8.

One would have hoped and expected that there would be a quietus to

one aspect of the litigation between the couple : custody rights and visitation

rights. But it was not so.

9.

The appellant filed a miscellaneous application bringing to the notice

of the learned Judge Family Court that the respondent was not contributing a

penny towards the education of the children. It was pointed out that the

2016:DHC:5854-DB

MAT.A. (FC) No.153/2014 Page 3 of 5

respondent is also not paying the maintenance. It was pointed out that the

children show reluctance to meet their father.

10.

The respondent denied not paying the maintenance. He also pointed

out that the appellant has initiated proceedings under the Criminal Procedure

Code in which after disclosing the maintenance already awarded to her she

is praying for an enhancement, a pleading which is wholly irrelevant to

decide the miscellaneous application filed by the appellant.

11.

T