Back
ITEM NO.16 COURT NO.12 SECTION IV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS I.A. 10/2015 & I.A.11/2015 in Civil Appeal No(s). 5099/2007 GAURAV NAGPAL Appellant(s) VERSUS SUMEDHA NAGPAL Respondent(s) (For appln. (s) for directions, permission to appear and argue in person and office report) Date : 17/02/2015 These applications were called on for hearing today. CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH For Appellant(s) Mr. Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Adv. Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Niharika Karanjawala, Adv. Mr. Mayank Dutta, Adv. Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv. Appellant-in-person For Respondent(s) Caveator-in-person UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
CAVEATOR-IN-PERSON
ORDER
Heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant-father in I.A. No. 10/2015 and the respondent-applicant (mother) in-person in I.A. No. 11/2015 for visitation rights to attend the family wedding which is scheduled to be held on 22nd and 23rd February, 2015. Digitally signed by Sushil Kumar Rakheja Date: 2015.02.20 14:23:19 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified The respondent-mother vehemently opposed the prayer in the interest of the child as there is terminal examination commencing from 26th February, 2015. Therefore, she has submitted that in the interest of the child to prepare and get ready for the ensuing examination, it may not be possible for her to permit the child to attend the family wedding, referred supra, and further she has submitted that the volume of subjects which are prescribed for the examination as per the syllabus, which is brought to our notice, it is vast, and requires lot of study as also concentration by the child and she has stated that the family wedding is of a cousin, not a close relationship, therefore, requested this Court not to accede to the request to permit the child for the wedding functions. In view of the opposition by the respondent-mother in I.A. No. 10 of 2015, particularly having regard to the right of visitation twice every month, which has already been availed of by the applicant-father, we are of the considered view that it is not just and proper for this Court to pass any further order. However, discretion is left to the mother that she may permit the child, if she thinks it fit and proper. With the aforesaid liberty to the applicant-mother, these I.As. are disposed of. (S. K. RAKHEJA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
