ROOPSI VARUN GUPTA Vs. VARUN VIKRAM GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of pleadings and the counter affidavit, it is surprising to note that the respondent contends that the factum of the birth of the child has not been informed to him. There is also an averment in the counter affidavit that the total period for which the parties have stayed together is only of sixteen months, out of seven years marriage.

(2.) On the other hand, there are different allegations made by the petitioner against the conduct of the Learned counsel for the parties, after some arguments, agree that it is a fit case which should be referred to the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. Further request is made by learned counsel for the respondent that the child should be brought to the Mediation Centre for interaction while on the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner requests for expenses to meet the needs of both the mother and the child.

(3.) We direct the respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- in this Court at the first instance to meet the expenses and on the petitioner visiting the Mediation Centre with the child, the amount be released to the petitioner.